List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Versus State of Karnataka, has held that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation for committing an offence under the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

What was the Background of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Versus State of Karnataka Case?

• The case of the prosecution is that appellant used to harass and tease the deceased lady to marry him.
• The prosecution alleged that the appellant’s teasing and harassment of the deceased to marry him instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months for the aforesaid offence.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the High Court of Karnataka, which was dismissed by the High Court and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court was upheld.
• Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that where the accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then instigation may be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
• It was also held that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It would also require an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that this act of the accused must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
• It was further states that merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 of IPC would not be sustainable.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 306 of IPC

• About:
  • Section 306 of IPC deals with the Abetment of suicide whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS).
  • It states that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
  • A bare reading of above provision would demonstrate that for an offence under Section 306 of IPC, there are twin requirements, namely, suicide and abetment to commit suicide.
  • Commission of suicide is not made punishable not because the commission of suicide is not culpable, but for the reason that the person culpably responsible would have departed from this world before he can face any indictment.
  • Whereas abetment of commission of suicide is viewed very seriously by law.
• Case Laws:
  • In the case of Randhir Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab (2004), the Supreme Court held that Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. A more active role, which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.
  • In the case of Amlendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010), the Supreme Court observed that the Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life.

Section 374 of CrPC

• This Section deals with the appeals from convictions. It states that -

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial, may appeal to the High Court.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person, —

(a) Convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or

(b) Sentenced under Section 325, or

(c) In respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under Section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.

(4) When an appeal has been filed against a sentence passed under Section 376, Section 376A, Section 376AB, Section 376B, Section 376C, Section 376D, Section 376DA, Section 376DB or Section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the appeal shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of filing of such appeal.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., has overturned the 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment and set aside the automatic stay vacation rule.

• The Supreme Court also issued crucial guidelines on the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What was the Background of High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Case?

• In the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018), the Supreme Court had held that the stay order granted in pending civil and criminal cases would automatically be vacated (would cease to exist) after six months.
• On 1^st December 2023, a Bench of three judges of Supreme Court expressed a view that a decision of this Court in this case requires reconsideration by a larger Bench.
• Thereafter a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud unanimously held that stay orders granted in pending cases do not automatically lapse. The Bench also held that the Court did not have the discretionary power under Article 142 to declare automatic vacation of stay orders.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The constitution bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Abhay S Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra set aside the automatic stay vacation rule and noted its potential adverse impact on litigants.
• The important parameters given by the Court for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the COI can be summarized as follows:
  • The jurisdiction can be exercised to do complete justice between the parties before the Court. It cannot be exercised to nullify the benefits derived by a large number of litigants based on judicial orders validly passed in their favor who are not parties to the proceedings before this Court.
  • Article 142 does not empower this Court to ignore the substantive rights of the litigants.
  • While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the COI this Court can always issue procedural directions to the Courts for streamlining procedural aspects and ironing out the creases in the procedural laws to ensure expeditious and timely disposal of cases. However, while doing so, this Court cannot affect the substantive rights of those litigants who are not parties to the case before it. The right to be heard before an adverse order is passed is not a matter of procedure but a substantive right.
  • The power of this Court under Article 142 cannot be exercised to defeat the principles of natural justice, which are an integral part of our jurisprudence.
  • Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances.
  • The issue of prioritizing the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending.

What is Article 142 of the COI?

• About:
  • Article 142 of the COI provides discretionary power of the Supreme Court.
  • It deals with the enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc. It states that -

(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.

• Objectives:
  • Article 142 of the COI provides a unique power to the Supreme Court, to do complete justice between the parties, where, at times, the law or statute may not provide a remedy.
  • In those situations, the Court can extend itself to put an end to a dispute in a manner that would fit the facts of the case.
• Case Laws:
  • Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India Case (1991), the Supreme Court placed itself above the laws made by the Parliament or the legislatures of the States by saying that, to do complete justice, it could even override the laws made by Parliament.
  • Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court stated that Article 142 of the COI could not be used to supplant the existing law, but only to supplement the law.