List of Current Affairs

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Majid @ Bablu & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh has held that the learned trial Court should pass the order under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(CrPC) before passing the order of acquittal.

What was the Background of Majid @ Bablu & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case?

• In this case, seven of the accused have been acquitted and the remaining two have been convicted.
• The Trial Court has adjudicated that a separate trial should be initiated against the petitioners and therefore, a notice for separate trial should be issued against them.
• Thereafter, a criminal revision has been filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh observed that an order under Section 319 of CrPC can be made only before the pronouncement of an order acquitting those already arraigned where the conclusion of the trial results in acquittal or a joint result. In a case of conviction, the proceedings under Section 319 of CrPC should be initiated before the imposition of sentence, the court clarified while hearing the criminal revision petition.
• It was further held that it is the settled proposition of law, the finding of the learned trial Court to summon the petitioners under Section 319 of CrPC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, therefore, the petition is allowed.

What is Section 319 of CrPC?

About:

• Section 319 of CrPC deals with the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 358 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
• It is based on the doctrine judex damantur cum nocens absolvitur which means Judges condemned when guilty is acquitted. This section states that-

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such a person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then—

(a) The proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;

(b) Subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.

Essential Elements of Section 319:

• There is any enquiry or trial of an offence.
• It appears from the evidence that any person, not being an accused, has committed any offence for which, the person is to be tried together with the accused.
• The power under this section is discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant.

Case laws:

• In the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), the Supreme Court held that Section 319 CrPC is based on the principle that innocent should not be punished, at the same time, real culprit should not be allowed to escape.
• In Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh and another v. State of Jharkhand (2008), the Supreme Court held that Section 319 of CrPC is a special provision. It seeks to meet an extraordinary situation. Although it confers of vide amplitude but is required to be exercised sparingly.

Source: Calcutta High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Janak Ram v. State, has held that addressing an unknown lady as darling would be a criminal offence under Sections 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (IPC).

What was the Background of Janak Ram v. State Case?

• In this case, the accused has asked the victim police lady constable, “Kya darling challan karne aai hay kya?"
• Thereafter, a case was registered under Sections 354A and 509 of the IPC.
• The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo three months imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 500 for each of the two offences.
• The accused filed an appeal before the Additional Session Judge, which was later dismissed, and the accused was directed to surrender within a month.
• Thereafter, a criminal revision application has been filed before the High Court of Calcutta.
• While disposing of the application, the High Court modified the sentence imposed by the trial court and accordingly imposed a one-month sentence instead.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta observed addressing an unknown lady, whether a police constable or not, on the street by a man, drunken or nor, with the word “darling” is patently offensive and the word used essentially a sexually coloured remark.
• It was further held that using such an expression to an unacquainted lady cannot but be an act intended to insult the modesty of the addressee. At least as of now, the prevailing standards in our society are not such that a man on the street can gleefully be permitted to use such expression in respect of unsuspecting, unacquainted women.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 354A of IPC

• Section 354A of IPC deals with Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.
• This Section was introduced in IPC by way of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
• It 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;

(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.

• The turning point against the growing social menace of sexual harassment of women at workplace could be traced back to the pathbreaking decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka and Ors v. State of Rajasthan (1997).
  • In this case the SC recognized sexual harassment at the workplace as a violation of a woman's fundamental right to equality and dignity.

Section 509 of IPC

About:

• This Section deals with the word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
• It states that whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.

Case Law:

• In the case of Abhijeet J.K. v. State of Kerala (2020), the Kerala High Court held the gravamen of Section 509 of IPC is the intent to insult the modesty of a woman. It is a settled position of law that there is distinction between an act of merely insulting a woman and an act of insulting the modesty of a woman. In order to attract section 509 of IPC, merely insulting a woman is not sufficient and insult to the modesty of a woman is required to have been done.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, and Justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, P S Narasimha, J B Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra has held Rajya Sabha as a part of basic structure doctrine of constitution.

• The Supreme Court gave the observation in the case of Sita Soren v. Union of India.

What was the Background of Sita Soren v. Union of India Case?

• The judgment at hand pertains to the interpretation of parliamentary privilege within the framework of the Indian Constitution, particularly Articles 105 and 194.
• The case involved an allegation of bribery against a legislator who purportedly accepted a bribe but did not vote as allegedly agreed upon.
• The appellant sought protection under Article 194(2) but was denied by the High Court, citing P V Narasimha Rao v. State (1998).
  • The matter was referred to higher benches due to its public importance.
• The final ruling by a larger bench of seven judges in the case, while not deciding on the appellant's guilt, emphasized the need to reconsider the interpretation of parliamentary privilege in cases involving bribery.

What was the Background of P V Narsimha Rao Case?

• Initiation:
  • The P V Narasimha Rao case stemmed from allegations of bribery during a no-confidence motion in the Tenth Lok Sabha in 1991.
  • P V Narasimha Rao, then Prime Minister, faced accusations of orchestrating a criminal conspiracy to secure votes against the motion.
  • Members from the JMM and Janata Dal (Ajit Singh Group) were allegedly bribed to vote against the motion.
  • A subsequent prosecution ensued, questioning the immunity of Members of Parliament (MPs) under Article 105 of the Constitution regarding bribery charges.
• Interpretations of Judges:
  • The case involved differing interpretations among judges.
  • Justice S P Bharucha held that MPs enjoy immunity from prosecution regarding their speech or vote in Parliament.
  • However, Justice S C Agarwal argued that such immunity does not extend to bribery charges.
  • The interpretation of "in respect of" in Article 105(2) was central to the debate.
  • Ultimately, Justice Bharucha's opinion prevailed, affirming immunity for MPs regarding actions directly related to parliamentary duties, including voting and speech, but not for criminal acts like bribery.
• Gist of the Case:
  • This landmark case clarified the scope of parliamentary immunity and its limits concerning criminal prosecutions for bribery.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Rajya Sabha, an Integral Component:
  • The Rajya Sabha or the Council of States performs an integral function in our democracy, and the role played by the Rajya Sabha constitutes part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
  • Therefore, the role played by elected members of the state legislative assemblies in electing members of the Rajya Sabha under Article 80 is significant and requires utmost protection to ensure that the vote is exercised freely and without fear of legal persecution.
• Parliamentary Privileges:
  • The protection granted under Articles 105 and 194, termed as "parliamentary privilege," extends to various responsibilities and powers exercised by elected members, not just limited to law-making activities on the House floor.
• Revisiting Previous Decisions:
  • The judges asserted the flexibility of the doctrine of stare decisis, allowing a larger bench to reconsider previous decisions, especially when they have wide-ranging implications on public interest, probity in public life, and parliamentary democracy.
  • The interpretation given in P V Narasimha Rao case was contrary to the principles of Articles 105 and 194.
• Clarifying Constitutional Parameters:
  • Judges affirmed that immunity from prosecution under Articles 105 and 194 cannot be claimed by individual legislators involved in bribery related to their legislative duties.
  • Such immunity fails the essential tests of collective functioning and necessity in discharging legislative duties.
• Views on Bribery:
  • SC observed that bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105(2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194 because a member engaging in bribery commits a crime which is not essential to the casting of the vote or the ability to decide on how the vote should be cast.
    • The same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the House or a Committee.
  • The offence of bribery is agnostic to the performance of the agreed action and crystallizes on the exchange of illegal gratification.
  • It does not matter whether the vote is cast in the agreed direction or if the vote is cast at all.
  • SC finally said that the offence of bribery is complete at the point in time when the legislator accepts the bribe.

What are Parliamentary Privileges under the Constitution?

Articles 105 and 194 are provisions within the Constitution of India, 1950 that deal with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of the State Legislature, respectively.

• Article 105:
  • This article deals with the powers and privileges of MPs.
  • MPs are immune from legal proceedings for anything said or any vote given during parliamentary sessions or committee meetings.
    • Likewise, the publication of parliamentary reports and proceedings is protected.
  • The powers, privileges, and immunities of each House of Parliament, its members, and committees are defined by Parliament through law.
  • Until defined, they remain as they were before the enactment of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
  • This also extends to individuals granted the right to speak and participate in parliamentary proceedings as per the Constitution.
• Article 194:
  • This article is similar to Article 105 but pertains to Members of the State Legislature instead of MPs.
  • Members of a State Legislature cannot be held accountable in court for their speech or votes within the Legislature or its committees.
  • The powers, privileges, and immunities of State Legislature Houses, members, and committees are determined by the Legislature itself, or by existing laws until further defined by the Legislature.