List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala has held that the lack of conducting an enquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) would not vitiate the process but the lack of an affidavit on record would vitiate the process.

What was the Background of Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the petitioners are all allegedly residing outside Kerala and are accused 1 to 4 in the files of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate's Court-XII, Thiruvananthapuram for an offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NIA).
• The petitioners have filed the petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the summons and warrants issued against them without conducting an enquiry under Section 202 of CrPC.
• The Court allowed the petition and quashed the summons and warrants issued against the petitioners.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that in cases arising under the NIA Act, even if an inquiry under section 202 CrPC has not been conducted, the same cannot vitiate the issuance of process. The requisite satisfaction need only be available from the materials on record. If the materials on record are not sufficient to arrive at such a satisfaction, then the accused will be justified in stating that the absence of reference to any affidavit would vitiate the proceedings.

What is Section 202 of CrPC?

About:

• This Section deals with the examination of complainant. It states that—

A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate.

Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses—

(a) If a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or

(b) If the Magistrate makes the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192.

Provided further that if the Magistrate makes the case over to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.

Objectives:

• To enable the Magistrate to carefully scrutinize the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein, as accused, from being called upon to face unnecessary, frivolous or meritless complaint.
• To find out whether there is any material in existence to support the allegations in the complaint.

Essential Elements:

• Section 202 of CrPC comes into play after the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence.
• The Magistrate has the power to investigate or direct the police officer to investigate the matter kept for consideration under the complaint that they have received under Section 192 or Section 202 of CrPC.
• Upon receiving a complaint, a magistrate can postpone the issue of summons or the arrest warrant to the accused, and during this time, they can either conduct the inquiry by themselves or direct the police to carry out the investigation.

Case Law:

• In Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh (1992) , the Supreme Court held that the scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the entire purpose of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is to ensure that the identity of the child is not disclosed unless the Special Court for reasons to be recorded in writing permits such disclosure.

• The aforesaid observation was made in the case of Utpal Mandal @ Utpal Mondal v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

What was the Background of Utpal Mandal @ Utpal Mondal v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Case?

• Before the Supreme Court, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the petitioner against impugned final judgment and order passed by the High Court at Calcutta.
• By way of this SLP, the petitioner was seeking anticipatory bail.
• After considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the material available on record, the Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of anticipatory bail.
• However, before closing the matter, the Court observed that the mandatory requirements of Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act and Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) have not been followed in this case.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising of Justices Sandeep Mehta and PB Varale observed that the identity of the child should not be disclosed unless the Special Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing permits such disclosure.
• The Court directed that an exercise of sensitization of judicial officers as well as the police officers is required to be undertaken in the State of West Bengal so as to ensure strict compliance of this mandatory requirement.
• The Supreme Court relied on the judgment given in the case of Nipun Saxena v. Union of India reported in (2019).
• In this case it was held that the disclosure of the identity can be permitted by the Special Court only when the same is in the interest of the child and in no other circumstances. Thus, the disclosure of the name of the child to make the child a symbol of protest cannot normally be treated to be in the interest of the child.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

POCSO Act

• This Act was passed in 2012 under the Ministry of Women and Child Development.
• It is a comprehensive piece of legislation designed to protect children from crimes including sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography.
• It is gender neutral act and considers welfare of the child as a matter of paramount importance.
• It provides for the establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offences and related matters and incidents.
• Death penalty as a punishment for offences of penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault was introduced in this act by the POCSO amendment bill, 2019.
• Under Section 2(1) (d) of the POCSO Act, a child is defined as any person below the age of 18 years.

Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act

• Section 33 of this Act deals with the procedure and powers of the Special Court.
• Sub-section 7 of Section 33 states that the Special Court shall ensure that the identity of the child is not disclosed at any time during the course of investigation or trial.
• Provided that for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Special Court may permit such disclosure, if in its opinion such disclosure is in the interest of the child.
• For the purposes of this sub-section, the identity of the child shall include the identity of the child's family, school, relatives, neighborhood or any other information by which the identity of the child may be revealed.

Section 228A of IPC

• This Section deals with the disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences, etc. It states that—

(1) Whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or section 376E is alleged or found to have been committed (hereafter in this section referred to as the victim) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) extends to any printing or publication of the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the victim if such printing or publication is—

(a) By or under the order in writing of the officer-in-charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation into such offence acting in good faith for the purposes of such investigation; or

(b) By, or with the authorization in writing of, the victim; or

(c) Where the victim is dead or minor or of unsound mind, by, or with the authorization in writing of, the next of kin of the victim.

Provided that no such authorization shall be given by the next of kin to anybody other than the chairman or the secretary, by whatever name called, of any recognized welfare institution or organization.

Explanation. —For the purposes of this sub-section, “recognized welfare institution or organization” means a social welfare institution or organization recognized in this behalf by the Central or State Government.

(3) Whoever prints or publishes any matter in relation to any proceeding before a court with respect to an offence referred to in sub-section (1) without the previous permission of such court shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation. —The printing or publication of the judgment of any High Court or the Supreme Court does not amount to an offence within the meaning of this section.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that “The right to equality under Article 14 and the right to life under Article 21 must be appreciated in the context of the decisions of this Court, the actions and commitments of the state on the national and international level, and scientific consensus on climate change and its adverse effects. From these, it emerges that there is a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change”.

• The aforesaid observation was made in the case of MK Ranjitsinh And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors..

What was the Background of MK Ranjitsinh And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors. Case?

• The case pertains to the critical endangerment of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), a species native to India, primarily in Rajasthan.
• Its population has rapidly declined due to habitat loss, hunting, and other threats.
• Various conservation efforts have been initiated, including the installation of bird diverters and breeding programs.
• However, challenges remain, particularly regarding overhead transmission lines posing risks to the species.
• A writ petition was filed seeking urgent conservation measures, leading to court directives to convert existing overhead power lines into underground ones.
• The government expressed concerns over the feasibility and implications of such directives, citing commitments to renewable energy and climate change mitigation.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC held that “India faces a number of pressing near-term challenges that directly impact the right to a healthy environment, particularly for vulnerable and indigenous communities including forest dwellers. The lack of reliable electricity supply for many citizens not only hinders economic development but also disproportionately affects communities, including women and low-income households, further perpetuating inequalities.”
• Therefore, the right to a healthy environment encapsulates the principle that every individual has the entitlement to live in an environment that is clean, safe, and conducive to their well-being.
• The Court also held that by recognizing the right to a healthy environment and the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, states are compelled to prioritize environmental protection and sustainable development, thereby addressing the root causes of climate change and safeguarding the well being of present and future generations.

What are Articles 14 and 21?

• Article 14:
  • Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 affirms the fundamental right of “equality before the law” and “equal protection of law” to all persons.
  • The first expression “equality before law” is of England origin and the second expression “equal protection of law” has been taken from the American Constitution.
  • Article 14: Equality before law - “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
• Article 21:
  • This Article states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.
  • This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.
  • The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the Heart of Fundamental Rights.
  • This right has been provided against the State only.
  • Article 21 secures two rights:
    • Right to life
    • Right to personal liberty