List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Sanghmitra v. State held that since the petitioner is a Police officer, we cannot say that she cannot be intimidated, harassed, and dowry cannot be demanded by her husband and in laws.

What was the Background of Sanghmitra v. State case?

• The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against her husband.
• The allegation leveled by the petitioner was that she got married to her husband according to Buddhist rites and ceremonies in the year 1998.
• Her parents had arranged the marriage according to the best of their financial abilities and had also given dowry.
• Both the petitioner and her husband were working in Delhi Police. Soon after the marriage, her husband, his parents and his sisters started taunting and teasing her for bringing insufficient dowry.
• Her husband used to ask her to give them more dowry and demanded Rs. 1.5 lakhs, a car and a separate house. The failure on the part of the petitioner’s father to fulfill the demands had resulted in torture and physical injuries being inflicted upon the petitioner.
• Since the petitioner was unable to fulfill the demands of her husband and in laws, she was allegedly beaten and thrown out of her matrimonial home on 8th September 1999.
• On the same day she lodged a complaint mentioning the incidents of cruelty.
• In April the petitioner had given birth to a daughter, and she was in dire need of her belongings, but her husband did not return her belongings. Eventually she lodged a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Caw Cell, New Delhi. Based on complaint, the First Information Report (FIR) was registered 19^th December 2002.
• The chargesheet in this case was filed under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC against the accused persons (her husband and in laws).
• The Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi had passed the order on 4^th June 2006 and accused persons were charged under section 498A read with section 34 IPC. Here she dropped the charges under section 406 IPC.
• The accused persons had preferred a revision petition and the learned session court had discharged them.
• The present petition was filed by the petitioner to set aside the judgment passed by Additional Session Judge, Delhi.
• The impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Court was set aside by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the complaint was filed by the petitioner within a period of 2 years and 10 months from the date of commission of offence, is within the period of limitation of 3 years as per Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
• The Court also held a police officer can also be a victim of domestic violence and that courts should not be blinded by gender-based or stereotypical perceptions associated with any profession

What were the Landmark Judgments Cited in this case?

• Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (2014):
  • In this case, the Supreme Court held that for the computation of period of limitation under section 468 CrPC, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the magistrate takes cognizance.
• Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (2007):
  • In this case, it was held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the relevant date must be considered as the date of filing of complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate or issuance of process by court.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in this Case?

Section 498A of IPC

• This Section deals with the husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
• It states that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Section 468 of CrPC

• This Section deals with the bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. It states that -

(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be -

(a) Six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

(b) One year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

(c) Three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence, which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India and Anr. has held that “The mere suspicion that there may be a mismatch in votes cast through EVMs, thereby giving rise to a demand for a 100% VVPAT slips verification, is not a sufficient ground for the present set of writ petitions to be considered maintainable”.

What was the Background of Maya Gopinathan v. Anoop S.B. Case?

• This case relates to petitions challenging the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in elections in India.
• The petitioners do not allege any motive or malice on part of the Election Commission of India (ECI) or claim that the EVMs have been rigged to favor any candidate or party.
  • However, they argued that due to the possibility of manipulating EVMs, there is suspicion and lack of confidence among voters.
• The petitioners alternatively argued for
  • returning to the paper ballot system,
  • allowing voters to verify and deposit the printed Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slip in a ballot box for counting, or
  • 100% counting of VVPAT slips in addition to electronic counting.
  • voters' have fundamental right to know that their vote has been correctly registered.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court observed that there is a stringent system of checks and balances in place with EVMs and VVPATs to prevent any possibility of miscount of votes and allow voters to know that their vote has been counted as recorded. This system is more satisfactory compared to the earlier paper ballot system.
• The court stated that writ petitions should not be entertained if they are based on mere suspicion that a right could be infringed. There must be credible evidence of a real threat to a right for a writ petition to be maintainable.
• The Doctrine of Res judicata applies to writ petitions as well. Unless substantial new grounds not previously raised are presented, the court can dismiss a petition at the threshold if the issue has been conclusively decided earlier.
• On the specific issue of doubting the efficacy of EVMs, the court observed that this has been raised before and needs to be definitively concluded now. Regressive measures like reverting to paper ballots cannot be adopted unless substantial evidence is presented against EVMs.
• The court emphasized the need to maintain a balanced perspective, avoid blindly distrusting any part of the system, and adopt a critical yet constructive approach guided by evidence and reason to allow for meaningful improvements while ensuring the system's credibility.
• The court expressed hope and trust that the existing system will not fail the electorate, and the mandate of voters will be truly reflected in the votes cast and counted through the robust democratic process.

What is the Law Related to Electronic Voting Machines?

• History of EVM:
  • The idea of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) was first conceived in 1977 and a prototype was developed in 1979 by Electronics Corporation of India Ltd (ECIL).
  • After political consensus, EVMs were used on a pilot basis in 1982 for an election in Kerala.
  • However, this usage was challenged in the case of A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai (1984) and the Supreme Court ruled that the Election Commission couldn't override laws and use EVMs without legal provisions.
• Legislative Amendment for EVM Usage:
  • Following the Supreme Court's 1984 judgment, the government amended the Representation of the People Act in 1989 by inserting Section 61A to provide legal sanction for using EVMs.
  • The constitutional validity of this amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Chief Election Commissioner (2001).
• Legal Provisions for EVMs and VVPATs:
  • Several provisions were added to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 related to usage of EVMs like fresh polls due to EVM failure, offences like booth capturing involving EVMs, rules for EVM design, voting and counting procedures etc.
  • Amendments were also made in 2013 to introduce VVPAT.
• Nationwide Adoption of EVMs:
  • After the 1989 legal amendments, EVMs were gradually used more widely across India over successive elections - in some constituencies in 1998-99, specific state elections from 2000 onwards, and finally all constituencies for the 2004 Lok Sabha elections when EVMs completely replaced ballot papers nationwide.
• Technological Evolution of EVMs:
  • The EVMs have undergone technological upgrades over time - the pre-2006 era had M1 EVMs, M2 models were produced from 2006-2010, and the latest M3 version has been in use since 2013.

What were the Landmark Judgments Cited in the Case?

• Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission of India (2013):
  • The Supreme Court held that a "paper trail" (VVPAT) is an indispensable requirement for free and fair elections to ensure accuracy and restore voter confidence in EVMs.
  • The ECI was permitted to introduce VVPATs in a gradual/phased manner across India due to the logistical challenges of handling 1 million polling booths.
• N. Chandrababu Naidu and Others v. Union of India and Another (2019):
  • Instead of VVPAT verification of 1 EVM per constituency as per guidelines, the Supreme Court directed that 5 EVMs per constituency should be subjected to VVPAT verification.
  • This was to generate greater satisfaction and ensure full accuracy of election results.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Indian Institute of Foreign Trade v. Kamal Jit Chibber has held an authority cannot deny information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on the ground that the information sought is bulky.

What was the Background of Indian Institute of Foreign Trade v. Kamal Jit Chibber Case?

• In this case, the petitioner Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT) is an educational institute set up by the Government of India to promote and professionalize the international trade and business of the country.
• Respondent No.1 is a former employee of the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 is Central Information Commission (CIC)which is a Quasi-judicial body.
• Respondent No.1 filed an RTI application with the PIO, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade seeking certain information.
• The respondent was not provided a reply and he preferred an appeal in front of the First Appellate Authority on 3^rd September 2013.
• Unsatisfied with the response, the respondent approached the CIC claiming non-furnishing of information.
• Two orders were passed by the CIC on 25^th December 2015 and 25^th January 2016. In the first order, the Commission ordered IIFT to allow Respondent No. 1 to inspect the records.
• However, in the January 2016 order, the CIC directed the Institute to provide categorical information on all 27 points raised.
• The Institute argued that the information sought by the Respondent No. 1 is voluminous, disclosure of which was denied as it would have taken a lot of resources.
• Challenging the order of the CIC, the petitioner filed a petition before the Delhi High Court.
• Finding no reason to interfere with the order of the CIC, the High Court dismissed the petition.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that an authority cannot deny information under the RTI Act on the ground that the information sought is bulky.
• It was further held that the information sought by the RTI Applicant herein does not fall in any of the exemptions contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act. If this Court accepts the contentions raised in the present Writ Petition, it will amount to adding one more exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act.

What is the RTI Act?

RTI Act

About:

• It is an act of the Parliament of India which sets out the rules and procedures regarding citizens' right to information.
• Under the provisions of RTI Act, any citizen of India may request information from a public authority which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days.
• The RTI Bill was passed by Parliament of India on 15 June 2005 and came into force with effect from 12^th October 2005.

Objectives:

• To empower the citizens.
• To promote transparency and accountability
• To deal with corruption.
• To enhance people’s participation in the democratic process.

Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019:

• It provided that the Chief Information Commissioner and an Information Commissioner (of Centre as well as States) shall hold office for such term as prescribed by the Central Government. Before this amendment, their term was fixed for 5 years.
• It provided that the salary, allowances and other service conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner and an Information Commissioner (of Centre as well as States) shall be such as prescribed by the Central Government.

Section 8 of the Act:

• This Act deals with the exemption from the disclosure of information.