List of Current Affairs

Source:Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently the Kerala High Court in the matter of State of Kerala v. Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam while applying the Rarest of Rare Test confirmed the death sentence awarded to the accused.

• The High Court observed that the case was deeply disturbing and represented a severe violation of human dignity and sanctity of life since after committing rape in an inhumane manner, the victim was murdered horrendously.

What was the Background of State of Kerala v. Muhammed Ameer-Ul Islam Case?

• In this case, the accused who is a native of Assam was a migrant labourer. He was residing during April 2016 at Vaidyasalapadi near Perumbavoor. The accused was aged 22 years then.
• On 28^th April 2016, the victim, a 30 year old law student was alone in the house during daytime, as her mother had gone to visit on that day, some of her acquaintances.
• When the mother returned home by about 8.30 p.m., the front door of the house was found to be locked from inside and there was no response from the victim when she was called out.
• When the Sub Inspector of Police entered the house through the back door, he found the body of the victim in the middle room lying in a pool of blood, half naked with grievous injuries throughout her body. A part of the internal organs of the victim was also seen pulled out.
• The investigation in the case revealed that it was a case of rape and murder committed by the accused, and final report was accordingly submitted in the case.
• The accused in the case stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 342, 376, 376A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under and sentenced him, to death. The accused is deeply aggrieved by his conviction and sentence.
• Thereafter, challenging his conviction, a criminal appeal was filed before the Kerala High Court.
• Dismissing the criminal appeal, the death sentence awarded to the accused is confirmed.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The division bench comprising Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and S. Manu observed that the case was deeply disturbing and represented a severe violation of human dignity and sanctity of life since after committing rape in an inhumane manner, the victim was murdered horrendously. The Court found that the case has far-reaching consequences since it creates fear and vulnerability amongst women.
• The Court further observed that awarding the ultimate penalty of death sentence to the accused in the case would serve as a resolute deterrent to those who would consider perpetrating such abhorrent acts in future, so that persons similarly placed like the victim who are innumerable in our society, would live with a sense of security and without fear.
• The Court concluded this judgment with the celebrated statement made by the Nobel Laureate, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience, but the conscience of the whole humanity”.

What is the Rarest of Rare Test?

Introduction

• There is no statutory definition of rarest of rare.
• It depends upon facts and circumstances of a particular case, brutality of the crime, conduct of the offender, previous history of his/her involvement in crime.
• The capital punishment in India is based on the rarest of rare case.

Rarest of Rare Cases:

• The expression rarest of rare cases was coined by the Supreme Court in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) and since then, life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty the exception as in India it is awarded only in the gravest of cases.
• The principles laid down in Bachan Singh were summarized by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court later in the case of Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983). The following propositions emerge from Bachan Singh case:
  • The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability.
  • Before opting for the death penalty, the circumstances of the offender also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the crime.
  • Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.
  • A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.

Scope of the Rarest of Rare Test:

• In Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P (1973), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, holding that it is not merely a deterrent but marks the rejection of the crime on the part of the society.
• The Supreme Court held that according to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) deprivation of life is constitutionally permissible if that is done according to the procedure established by law. Thus, the death sentence imposed after a trial in accordance with legally established procedures is not unconstitutional under Article 21.

Dimensions of the Rarest of Rare Test:

• According to the Supreme Court, the crime must be viewed from different angles such as the manner of committing the murder, the motive for the murder, the anti- social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime and the horrors and personally of the victim of the murder.
• Generally, Courts award life imprisonment to convict in a murder case. Only in rarest of rare cases murder convicts are given death penalty.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently the Supreme Court's decision to quash the conviction of the man for stalking and criminal intimidation, based on his marriage to the complainant during the appeal process, raises questions about the intersection of personal relationships and legal proceedings. Additionally, the case highlights the importance of considering evolving circumstances, such as marriage, in judicial decisions.

What was the Background of Dasari Srikanth v. State of Telangana Case?

• The appellant faced charges for sexual harassment under Sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act, as well as under Section 354D and 506 Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The trial court acquitted him of the POCSO Act offenses but convicted him for the other charges on April 9, 2021.
• In June 2023, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 3 months imprisonment each for the offenses under Section 354D and 506 IPC.
• While his appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, the appellant and the victim married in August 2023.
• Considering this development, the Supreme Court noted that upholding the High Court's verdict would jeopardize their matrimonial life,
• Invoking special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court quashed the convictions.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that the offences under Section 354D IPC and Section 506 IPC are personal to the complainant and the accused appellant.
  • The fact that the appellant and the complainant have married each other during the pendency of this appeal gives rise to a reasonable belief that both were involved in some kind of relationship even when the offences alleged were said to have been committed.

What is Stalking?

• Stalking defines as a encompasses behavior such as persistent following or attempting to communicate privately with someone, with the aim of causing fear or distress.
• A stalker under IPC, is an individual engaged in the act of stalking. Stalking involves deliberately and persistently following or contacting another person without their consent, with the intention of causing fear or discomfort.

What is Stalking in IPC?

• About:
  • The Indian Penal Code of 1860 relies on Actus Reus and Mens Rea to prosecute individuals for criminal offenses.
  • Stalking, which commonly involves following someone without their consent, whether physically or online, falls under this legal framework.
    • According to Section 354D IPC, which defines stalking, a man may face stalking charges if he engages in any of the following actions:
    • Following a woman: This involves pursuing a woman in person, trailing her, or monitoring her activities closely.
    • Repeated contacts or attempts to contact: The man repeatedly tries to establish contact with the woman. This contact could be through phone calls, messages, or other forms of communication.
• Legal Provision:
  • Section 354D deals with stalking. It states that any man who
    • follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
    • monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking: Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that—
      • it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
      • it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
      • in the circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
• Section 77(1) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with stalking.

What is the Element of Section 354D of IPC?

• Perpetrator: The individual committing the offense must be male.
• Unwanted Approach: The man attempts to approach a woman without her consent.
• Repetition: The man's actions must display a pattern of repetition or persistence.
• Absence of Consent: The woman's lack of consent or unwillingness to engage with the man should be evident.

What is the Punishment of offence under Section 354(2)D of IPC?

Under Section 354(2) D of the IPC, the punishment for stalking is as follows:

• First Offense: The accused may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term up to three years, or with a fine, or with both.
• Subsequent Offenses: If the accused commits subsequent offenses, they may be punished with imprisonment for a term up to five years, or with a fine, or with both.

What is the Major Case Law related to Section 354D of IPC?

• In the case of Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Orissa (2017) the victim, a girl, approached the court regarding offensive comments made against her at school, which tarnished her character. Additionally, her father received offensive messages from an unknown mobile number, impacting his character. Upon learning of this, the father apologized to the victim and informed her of the situation. Despite this, the High Court denied bail, stating that the accused was prima facie guilty of sexual harassment.
• In the case of Shri Deu Baju Bodake v. State of Maharashtra (2016) the Bombay High Court handled the tragic death of a woman resulting from persistent harassment and stalking by the accused. Despite the victim's clear resistance and disinterest, the accused relentlessly pursued and stalked her, even at her workplace. The High Court highlighted the relevance of utilizing Section 354D of the IPC to hold the guilty accountable for aiding and abetting suicide.

What is Section 506 of IPC?

• Section 506 of IPC deals with criminal intimidation.
• It states that whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently a bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that the application under Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is maintainable if the appointment of the arbitrator was made by the court under Section 11 of the A&C Act.

• The Allahabad High Court gave this observation in the case of M/s Geo Miller and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. UP Jal Nigam and Others.

What was the Background of M/s Geo Miller and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. UP Jal Nigam and Others Case?

• M/s Geo Miller and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner – ARBT 4) and U.P. Jal Nigam and Others (Respondent – ARBT 4) entered into a contract.
• Disputes and differences arose between Petitioner – ARBT 4 and Respondents – ARBT 4 which were referred to arbitration.
• Petitioner – ARBT 4 filed an application under Section 11 of the A&c Act before the Court for appointment of an arbitrator.
  • The Court appointed an arbitrator.
• The time limit for making an arbitral award as provided under Section 29A of the A&C Act expired on 29^th February 2024.
  • The arbitrator could not publish his award within the statutory time limit and asked the parties to seek extension of time in accordance with the law.
• Petitioner – ARBT 4 filed an application under Section 29A of the A&C Act, seeking extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal.
• Disputes and differences arose between GPT Infraprojects Limited (Petitioner - ARBT 5) and Kanpur Development Authority (Respondent - ARBT 5), which were referred to arbitration.
• The Court appointed an arbitrator in the case between Petitioner - ARBT 5 and Respondent - ARBT 5 under Section 11 of the A&C Act.
• The time limit to make an arbitral award in accordance with Section 29A of the Act was about to expire on 7^th March 2024.
• Petitioner - ARBT 5 filed an application under Section 29A of the Act, seeking an extension of time before the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court said that the principle of judicial discipline and adherence to binding precedents is a cornerstone of the legal system, essential for maintaining consistency, predictability, and legitimacy of judicial decisions.
• In light of the above, since the appointment of the arbitrator in ARBT 4 and 5 of 2024 were made by the Allahabad High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 11 of the Act, the instant applications filed under Section 29A(4) and Section 29A(5) of the A&C Act were held maintainable before this Court.
  • Accordingly, ARBT NO.4 & 5 of 2024 were allowed, and the mandate of the arbitrator was extended for 8 months from the date of this judgment.

What is Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

• Time Limit for Domestic and International Commercial Arbitration Awards (Sub-section 1)
  • The award in matters other than international commercial arbitration shall be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of section 23.
  • International Commercial Arbitration: The award in international commercial arbitration should be made as expeditiously as possible, and an effort may be made to dispose of the matter within twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of section 23.
• Additional Fees for Timely Awards (Sub-section 2)
  • If the award is made within six months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference, the arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to receive additional fees as agreed upon by the parties.
• Extension of Time by Consent (Sub-section 3)
  • The parties may, by consent, extend the period for making the award for a further period not exceeding six months.
• Termination of Mandate and Court Extensions (Sub-section 4)
  • If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the Court extends the period, either prior to or after the expiry of the specified period.
  • Fee Reduction:
    • The Court may order a reduction of the arbitrators' fees by up to five percent for each month of delay if the delay is attributable to the arbitral tribunal.
  • Pending Applications:
    • If an application under sub-section (5) is pending, the mandate of the arbitrator shall continue until the disposal of the application.
  • Opportunity for Arbitrators:
    • Arbitrators shall be given an opportunity to be heard before any reduction of fees.
• Extension of Period by Court (Sub-section 5)
  • The Court may extend the period referred to in sub-section (4) upon application by any party for sufficient cause and may impose terms and conditions.
• Substitution of Arbitrators (Sub-section 6)
  • While extending the period, the Court may substitute one or all of the arbitrators. The arbitral proceedings shall continue from the current stage, and the new arbitrator(s) shall consider the evidence and material already on record.
• Continuity of Arbitral Tribunal (Sub-section 7)
  • An arbitral tribunal reconstituted under this section shall be deemed to continue from the previously appointed tribunal.
• Imposition of Costs (Sub-section 8)
  • The Court may impose actual or exemplary costs upon any of the parties under this section.
• Expeditious Disposal of Applications (Sub-section 9)
  • Applications filed under sub-section (5) shall be disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible, with an endeavor to dispose of the matter within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party.