List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a division bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held that merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

What was the Background of Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Case?

• The case involves an appellant, a Professor at a college in Maharashtra, who faced charges under Section 153-A of the IPC due to messages posted on his WhatsApp status.
• The messages criticized the abrogation of Article 370 and extended wishes to Pakistan on its Independence Day.
• The state registered a First Information Report (FIR) based on these messages, leading the appellant to file a writ petition for quashing the FIR.
• The High Court dismissed the petition to quash FIR, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
• The appellant's messages were deemed objectionable, particularly by the state government, as they allegedly promoted disharmony.
• The High Court found some parts of the messages to be offensive under Section 153-A of the IPC, although it deemed others innocuous.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC examined the applicability of Section 153-A of the IPC to the appellant's case.
• It emphasized that the law requires intention to promote enmity or hatred among groups, and the messages in question did not meet this criterion.
• The Court highlighted the importance of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution of India, 1950, subject to reasonable restrictions.
• The Court held that the appellant's messages, although critical of certain governmental actions, did not incite hatred or disharmony among groups.
  • It reasoned that expressions of dissent and criticism are integral to democracy and should be protected.
• The Court also emphasized that goodwill gestures, such as extending wishes to Pakistan on its Independence Day, do not constitute promoting disharmony.
• Hence, the SC allowed the appeal.

What are the New and Old Law Related to Promoting Enmity Between Different Groups?

• Old Law: Section 153A of the IPC:
  • This section pertains to the promotion of enmity between various groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or community.
  • Prohibited Actions
    • Promotion of Disharmony:
      • By words (spoken or written), signs, visible representations, or otherwise, promoting or attempting to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill will between different groups.
    • Acts Prejudicial to Harmony:
      • Committing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different groups, disturbing or likely to disturb public tranquility.
    • Organizing or Participating in Activities Involving Criminal Force or Violence:
      • Organizing or participating in exercises, movements, drills, or similar activities with the intention or knowledge that participants may use criminal force or violence against any group, causing fear, alarm, or insecurity among members of that group.
  • Penalties
    • Imprisonment: Up to three years, or
    • Fine, or
    • Both
  • Offences in Places of Worship or Religious Assemblies
    • Committing the aforementioned offences in any place of worship or assembly engaged in religious worship or ceremonies carries harsher penalties:
    • Imprisonment: Up to five years
    • Fine: As determined by the court
• New Law: Section 196 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS):
  • Section 196 of BNS addresses same concerns as addressed under Section 153A of IPC but extends to include electronic communication as a means of promotion, covering a broader spectrum of communication methods.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Supreme Court directed Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) officers regarding the inadmissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), based on the judgment in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021).

What was the Background of the Case?

• The case involves a seizure of 5950 Tramadol tablets from a parcel at DHL Express Pvt. Ltd. in 2021.
• During the interrogation, the co-accused disclosed the name of the appellant.
• The appellant sought anticipatory bail by contending that the case against him is entirely based on a confessional statement of the co-accused.
• Despite no recovery of contraband from the appellant or his premises, the High Court rejected his plea, citing prima facie evidence linking him to the parcel.
  • The High Court maintained that the appellant's custodial interrogation was necessary.
• The appeal was later brought before the SC, albeit with a delay of 219 days, which was not satisfactorily explained, resulting in the appeal's dismissal.

What were the Court's Observations?

• The SC's directive in this case stems from its interpretation and application of Section 67 NDPS Act and its earlier judgment in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021).
• In the Toofan Singh case, the Court ruled that confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act are inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.
• The Court reasoned that officers of the Central and State agencies under the NDPS Act are essentially police officers, thus rendering such confessional statements inadmissible.

What is Section 67 of the NDPS Act?

• Overview:
  • Section 67 grants authority to officers mentioned in Section 42 of the NDPS Act to gather information during investigations related to contraventions of the NDPS Act.
• Powers Granted:
  • Call for Information:
    • Authorized officers may request information from any individual to determine if there has been a contravention of the NDPS Act, its rules, or orders.
  • Requirement to Produce Documents or Things:
    • Officers can compel individuals to produce or deliver any document or object deemed relevant to the investigation.
  • Examination of Individuals:
    • Officers can examine anyone who has knowledge about the facts and circumstances of the case under investigation.

Who are Officers and Their Powers under Section 42 of the NDPS Act?

• Officers:
  • Officers empowered to exercise powers under Section 42 include those from:
    • Departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence, or any other Central Government department.
    • Departments of revenue, drugs control, excise, police, or any other State Government department.
  • These officers must be superior in rank to a peon, sepoy, or constable.
• Empowerment to Officers:
  • They are empowered by general or special orders:
    • Central Government empowers officers for central departments.
    • The State Government empowers officers for state departments.
• Power of Officers not below the Rank of Sub-inspector:
  • Officers not below the rank of sub-inspector can exercise powers in the case of holders of licenses for drug manufacture.
• Essentials for Exercising Powers:
  • Officers can exercise powers without a warrant or authorization if they have reason to believe:
    • An offence punishable under the NDPS Act has been committed.
    • Narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances, documents, articles, or illegally acquired property are kept or concealed in any building, conveyance, or enclosed place.
• Powers Include:
  • Entering and searching buildings, conveyances, or places.
  • Breaking open doors and removing obstacles in case of resistance.
  • Seizing drugs, substances, materials, articles, animals, conveyances, documents, or other evidence.
  • Detaining, searching, and arresting persons believed to have committed offenses under the NDPS Act.
  • Officers may also enter and search between sunset and sunrise without a warrant if they believe obtaining one could lead to evidence concealment or offender escape, after recording grounds for belief.
• Time Limit:
  • The officer must send a copy of the information or recorded grounds within seventy-two hours to their immediate official superior.