List of Current Affairs

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Rajasthan High Court has held that the right to be forgotten by the destruction of juvenile delinquency records is an absolute right if the juvenile has been extended the benefits of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

• The aforesaid observation was made in the matter of Jitendra Meena v. State of Rajasthan.

What was the Background of Jitendra Meena v. State of Rajasthan Case?

• The respondents issued an advertisement dated 4^th December 2019 under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Services Rules, 1989 for the post of Constable for various districts of the State.
• The petitioner, being eligible, submitted his application, in pursuance of the said advertisement.
• Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the examination and was declared successful in the same.
• The respondents issued a Press Note calling the successful candidates, including the present petitioner, for documents verification and medical test before the concerned authorities.
• Thereafter, the respondents issued a selection list of the candidates for the post in question, wherein the petitioner’s name was shown.
• Subsequently, the respondents declared the petitioner ineligible for the post in question on account of registration of a criminal case against him.
• Thus, being aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before the Rajasthan High Court which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The single-judge bench of Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati observed that the right to be forgotten, regarding a Juvenile, where Section 24 of the JJ Act, shall remain a definite right and a juvenile, who has been given the benefit of Section 24 shall be entitled for erasure of his juvenile delinquency by not putting it on record anywhere, because creation or perpetuation of such record, may highlight a kind of embarrassment to the juvenile, which in turn, would certainly have an adverse impact on his future prospects, which includes a selection process for public employment, and goes against the legislative intention of juvenile laws.

What is Section 24 of the JJ Act?

About the Act:

• This Act came into force on January 15, 2016. It repealed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
• This Act seeks to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children as ratified by India on December 11, 1992.
• It specifies 58+procedural safeguards in cases of children in conflict with law.
• It seeks to address challenges in the existing Act such as delays in adoption processes, high pendency of cases, accountability of institutions, etc.
• The Act further seeks to address children in the 16-18 age group, in conflict with law, as an increased incidence of crimes committed by them have been reported over the past few years
• According to Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Amendment Act, 2021, crimes against children which are mentioned in the chapter “Other Offences Against Children” of the JJ Act, 2015 and that allows imprisonment between three and seven years will be deemed “non-cognizable”.

Section 24 of the Act:

About:

• This Section deals with the removal of disqualification on the findings of an offence.
• It states that —

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a child who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to a conviction of an offence under such law.

Provided that in the case of a child who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years and is found to be in conflict with law by the Children’s Court under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 19, the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply.

(2) The Board shall make an order directing the Police, or by the Children’s Court to its own registry that the relevant records of such conviction shall be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal or, as the case may be, a reasonable period as may be prescribed.

Provided that in case of a heinous offence where the child is found to be in conflict with law under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 19, the relevant records of conviction of such child shall be retained by the Children’s Court.

• This Section is not only for excluding or erasing the criminal antecedent record, but goes a step forward, by laying down a provision that the criminal antecedent record of a juvenile be erased/destroyed completely, so that such previous conviction or criminal delinquency of a juvenile would not be carried forward, so as to prevent any adverse impact of his previous delinquency, upon his future prospects.

Case Law:

• In the case of Jorawer Singh Mundy @ Jorawar Singh Mundy v. Union of India and Ors. (2021), the Delhi High Court held that in the cases of juvenile delinquency, if any criminal antecedent record of a juvenile is allowed to remain intact, to be accessed, amongst others, by using the technology tools, the same may not only bring humiliation and discredit to the juvenile, but may also adversely impact the future prospects of the juvenile, among other things.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Sanjay Agarwal v. Rahul Agarwal and Ors., has held that the objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) are not maintainable in execution proceedings for the enforcement of an arbitration award.

What is the Background of Sanjay Agarwal v. Rahul Agarwal and Ors. Case?

• In this case, Sri Kishori Lal Agarwal and Sanjay Agarwal (revisionist) entered into an agreement on 19^th December 1986 providing that Wing “A” of the property will be exclusively developed by Sri Kishori Lal Agarwal and Wing “B” will be developed exclusively by the revisionist.
• The revisionist’s father Sri Motilal Agarwal died on 31^st December 2007 leaving behind his wife, sons - Sanjay Agarwal (Revisionist) and Rahul Agarwal (opposite party No.1) and a daughter.
• After the death of Sri Motilal Agarwal, there was dispute amongst the family with regard to the distribution of his assets and property.
• It has been submitted that Sri Anirudh Mithal was a friend of revisionist’s father and he intervened to make efforts to amicably resolve the disputes and differences among the family members.
• It is on his intervention that the award/family settlement was passed after several meetings, consultations and after going through various documents.
• Opposite Party No.1 filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act) in the Court of District Judge, which was rejected.
• The revisionist filed his objections under Section 47 of CPC inter-alia stating that no arbitration agreement was executed between the parties and the alleged award was not an outcome of arbitration proceedings and therefore could not be executed.
• The First appeal preferred by opposite party No. 1 filed against the rejection of his application under section 9 of the A & C Act before the Allahabad High Court.
• The High Court directed the District Judge to dispose of the application for execution along with the objections within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of the order
• The District Judge has rejected the objections preferred by the revisionist and against the said order the present revision has been filed before the High Court.
• The High Court dismissed the revision petition.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Alok Mathur observed that the objections under Section 47 of the CPC are not maintainable in execution proceedings for the enforcement of an arbitration award. It held that an arbitration award, not being issued by a "court," falls outside the definition of a decree as outlined in Section 2(2) of CPC.
• It was further held that the District Judge rightly exercised his jurisdiction in rejecting the objections under Section 47 of the CPC, and the revisionist's submissions lacked merit.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 47 of CPC

About:

• This Section deals with the questions to be determined by the Court executing decree. It states that-

(1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.

(2) Omitted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act, 1976)

(3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such a question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.

Explanation I.- For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.

Explanation II.- (a) for the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and (b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.

Case Law:

• In the case of Bharat Pumps and Compressors V. Chopra Fabricators (2022), the Supreme Court held that an arbitration award is not included under the definition and meaning of decree in CPC and so no questions can be raised in the execution of such an award.

Section 2(2) of CPC

• Section 2 (2) CPC defines decree to mean formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include -

(a) Any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or

(b) Any order of dismissal for default.

• Explanation. - A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final.

Section 9 of A & C Act

• This Act deals with the interim measures etc. by Court.
• Under the Act, parties can approach the Court under Section 9 of this Act to seek interim reliefs before, or during the arbitral proceedings, or at any time after the passing of the award but before it is enforced.
• Interim reliefs are an essential safeguard provided under the Act to ensure that any claims which a party wishes to raise in the arbitration are protected in the form of security, guarantees or other measures as the Court may deem fit, based on a case-to-case assessment.

Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the single judge bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that the right to fair trial is not only restricted to the accused. It extends to the victim and society as well.

What was the Background of the Case?

• The victim’s contention was that the Investigating Officer is not pursuing a fair investigation.
• She sought involvement of any special investigation agency doing impartial investigation.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Punjab and Haryana High Court held that nowadays, all the attention is given to the accused to ensure fair investigation resulting in a fair trial while little concern is shown to the victim and the society.
  • The onerous duty to maintain a middle ground to secure fair investigation and trial of the accused without sacrificing the interest of the victim and the society is cast upon the Courts.

What is the Right to Fair Trial?

• About:
  • Fair trials uphold justice and ensure societal integrity. Without them, wrongful convictions occur, eroding trust in the justice system. Governments must uphold law and order while respecting civil liberties.
• Legal Provisions:

• Landmark Cases:
  • Shyam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1973):
    • The court noted that determining bias's impact on judgment is not crucial; what matters is if a litigant could reasonably fear that a judicial bias influenced the final decision.
  • Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and ors. v. State of Gujarat (2006)
    • The Supreme Court emphasizes fair treatment for both accused and victims, highlighting the intrinsic right to fairness in criminal trials.
  • Himanshu Singh Sabharwa v. State of M.P. Ors (2008)
    • Courts wield authority under relevant legal provisions to ensure fair trial, intervening when due process is compromised.