List of Current Affairs

Source: Madras High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Madras High Court in the matter of Simon and Ors. v. State has held that public assembling and demonstrating against police will not be considered as an offence when there is no prohibitory order under the provisions of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 (CrPC).

What was the Background of Simon and Ors. v. State Case?

• The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant namely, one Surenthirakumar, who is working as the Village Administrative Officer, lodged a complaint before the respondent police stating that on 10^th April 2022 at about 11.30 a.m., the petitioners conducted the first anniversary of one Silambarasan, who died following a police chase and torture on 07^th April 2021.
• They conducted continuous demonstrations in front of the statue with a very small number of people.
• Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent police obtained a complaint from the Village Administrative Officer and registered a case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Thereafter, a criminal petition was filed before the High Court of Madras for quashing of the FIR against the petitioners.
• Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the FIR.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice M Dhandapani observed that at the relevant point of time, there is no prohibitory order prohibiting the general public to assemble in a particular area. In the absence of prohibitory order under Section 144 of the CrPC, assembling few persons in front of the statue and making a demonstration as against the respondent police will not amount to commission of the offence.
• It was further stated that when there is no prohibitory order existing under Section144 CrPC, there was no illegality in a few people assembling and demonstrating against the police and the same would not constitute an offence.

What is Section 144 of CrPC?

About:

• This Section deals with the power to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
• This Section empowers the magistrate of any State or Union Territory in India to pass an order prohibiting the gathering of four or more people in a specified area.
• It is imposed in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger of some event that has the potential to cause trouble or damage to human life or property.
• This order can be passed against a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area.

Purpose:

• The ultimate purpose of Section 144 is to maintain peace and order in the areas where trouble could erupt to disrupt the regular life.
• It prevents, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety or a disturbance of public tranquility, or a riot, or an affray.

Essential Elements:

• It places restrictions on handling or transporting any kind of weapon in the given jurisdiction. The maximum punishment for such an act is three years.
• According to the order under this section, there shall be no movement of public and all educational institutions shall also remain closed.
• Further, there will be a complete bar on holding any kind of public meeting or rallies during the period of operation of this order.
• It is deemed a punishable offence to obstruct law enforcement agencies from disbanding an unlawful assembly.
• It also empowers the authorities to block internet access in the region.

Duration:

• No order under this section can remain in force for a period of more than 2 months.
• Under the State government’s discretion, it can choose to extend the validity for two more months with the maximum validity extendable to six months.
• Once the situation becomes normal, Section 144 levied can be withdrawn.

Case Law:

• In the case of Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1970), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 144 of CrPC. The Court said that “law may be abused” is no reason to strike it down. It further ruled that the restrictions imposed through this section cannot be held to be violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Kirti v. Renu Anand & Ors., has held that the orders passed by the tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are also separately amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What was the Background of Kirti v. Renu Anand & Ors. Case?

• In this case, an application was filed by late Smt. Satya Rani Chopra (predecessor–in–interest of the parties) before the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking cancellation of the gift deed executed by her in favor of respondent with respect to third floor with roof rights of the subject property.
• The Maintenance Tribunal, by its order, allowed the said application and granted the declaration that the gift deed is null and void for all purposes.
• The aforesaid order was impugned by the respondent by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the COI, for setting aside the said order of the Maintenance Tribunal.
• The writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge and the order of the Maintenance Tribunal was set aside.
• Thereafter, the appellant (legal heir of late Smt. Satya Rani Chopra) filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the orders passed by tribunals are, however, separately also amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the COI. As against the order of a tribunal such as the Maintenance Tribunal, the aggrieved party, therefore, has the option to either invoke Article 226 or Article 227 of the COI depending upon the nature of relief sought in the petition.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

• This legislation is initiated by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
• It provides for more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
• Section 23 of this Act deals with the transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.

Article 226 of the COI

• Article 226 is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which puts power in the hand of the High Court to issue the writs.
• Article 226(1) of the COI states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purpose.
• Article 226(2) states that the High Court has the power to issue writs or orders to any person, or government, or authority -
  • Located within its jurisdiction or
  • Outside its local jurisdiction if the circumstances of the cause of action arises either wholly or partly within its territorial jurisdiction.
• Article 226(3) states that when an interim order is passed by a High Court by way of injunction, stay, or by other means against a party then that party may apply to the court for the vacation of such an order and such an application should be disposed of by the court within the period of two weeks.
• Article 226(4) says that the power granted by this article to a high court should not diminish the authority granted to the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32.
• This Article can be issued against any person or authority, including the government.
  • This is merely a constitutional right and not a fundamental right and cannot be suspended even during an emergency.
• Article 226 is of mandatory nature in case of fundamental rights and discretionary nature when it is issued for “any other purpose”.
  • It enforces not only fundamental rights, but also other legal rights.
• The following writs are available under this Article:
  • Writ of Habeas Corpus
  • Writ of Mandamus
  • Writ of Certiorari
  • Writ of prohibition
  • Writ of Quo warranto

Article 227 of the COI

• This Article is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. It states that-

(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may—

(a) call for returns from such courts;

(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and

(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.

(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein.

Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed, or tables settled under clause (2), or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force and shall require the previous approval of the Governor.

(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court power of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.