List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently a bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan held that it is surprising that despite the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act) having been enacted in the year 1961 and more than 62 years have passed, the progress with regard to eradication of practice of dowry has been slow.

• The Allahabad High Court directed that the illegal practice of dowry is required to be addressed by government in the case of Ankit Singh and 3 Others v. State of UP and Another.

What was the Background of Ankit Singh and 3 Others v. State of UP and Another Case?

• This case relates to the implementation of the DP Act and the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court observed that in many dowry cases, the provisions of the Rules, particularly maintaining a list of gifts/presents as per Rule 10 and following the procedures laid down in Rule 7, are not being followed.
• The court noted concerns about the lack of awareness programs, lack of involvement of Dowry Prohibition Officers in investigations, lack of recovery of alleged dowry amounts during investigations, and over-reliance on statements of complainants who may themselves be offenders for giving dowry.
• The court highlighted instances where large cash amounts beyond permissible limits are alleged to have been given as dowry, but the source and utilization of these amounts are not being investigated.

What were the Directions of Allahabad High Court on Implementation of DP Act and Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 i in Uttar Pradesh?

• The state government has to explain why Rules 10 and the Rules of 1985 regarding maintaining a list of gifts are not being implemented and the steps taken to encourage submission of such lists.
• The Chief Dowry Prohibition Officer has to provide data on awareness programs conducted in the last two years through various media and public hoardings.
• The state government has to examine why the principles of Rule 6(4) regarding taking preventive and remedial measures are not being followed.
• The state government has to examine the necessity of exercising power under Section 8B(3) to confer certain police powers on Dowry Prohibition Officers.
• The Chief Dowry Prohibition Officer has to provide details of complaints received and prosecutions initiated by Dowry Prohibition Officers in the last two years.
• The DGP has to file an affidavit explaining why the source and utilization of alleged dowry amounts, particularly large cash amounts, are not being investigated, and why such amounts (being proceeds of crime) are not being recovered during investigations.
• The state government has to explore putting up notices in marriage venues regarding the anti-dowry campaign and maintaining lists of gifts.

Who are Dowry Prohibition Officers?

Section 8B. Dowry Prohibition Officers

• Appointment and Jurisdiction (Sub-section 1):
  • The State Government may appoint as many Dowry Prohibition Officers as it thinks fit and specify the areas in respect of which they shall exercise their jurisdiction and powers under this Act.
• Powers and Functions (Sub-section 2):
  • Every Dowry Prohibition Officer shall exercise and perform the following powers and functions, namely:
    • to see that the provisions of this Act are complied with;
    • to prevent, as far as possible, the taking or abetting the taking of, or the demanding of, dowry;
    • to collect such evidence as may be necessary for the prosecution of persons committing offences under the Act; and
    • to perform such additional functions as may be assigned to him by the State Government, or as may be specified in the rules made under this Act.
• Powers of a Police Officer (Sub-section 3):
  • The State Government may, through an official notification, confer certain powers of a police officer upon the Dowry Prohibition Officers. These powers will be subject to the limitations and conditions specified in the rules made under the DP Act.
• Advisory Board (Sub-section 4):
  • The State Government may, for the purpose of advising and assisting Dowry Prohibition Officers in the efficient performance of their functions under this Act, appoint an advisory board consisting of not more than five social welfare workers (out of whom at least two shall be women) from the area in respect of which such Dowry Prohibition Officer exercises jurisdiction under sub-section (1).

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

In a recent matter, Miss Olive Rohit and Others v. State of UP and Others Allahabad High Court highlighted the contentious issue of alleged coercion in religious conversions and sexual abuse.

• The court orders that no coercive action will be taken against the petitioners, and they will not be arrested in pursuance of the instant FIR.

What was the Background of Miss Olive Rohit and Others v. State of UP and Others?

• Miss Olive Rohit (Petitioner), a teacher at a respected school, is accused in a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) of pressuring the informant's son, a Class X student, for a sexual relationship and conversion to Christianity.
• On 30^th September 2023, the informant discovered incriminating chat messages on his son's phone, allegedly instigated by Petitioner, which were later circulated on social media without the child's consent.
• Despite complaints to the Child Welfare Committee and senior police officers, no action was taken.
• A supplementary affidavit and inquiry report conducted by the school's Principal and three independent individuals, including a retired P.C.S. Officer, another school Principal, and a social worker, suggest that the son initiated the conversation using fake IDs after obtaining the teacher's phone number during a dance competition.
• The inquiry found no evidence supporting the son's allegations of a sexual relationship with the teacher and concluded that the son, though a minor, exhibited strong mental dominance.
• Petitioner has filed an FIR against Respondent under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Sections 354-A, 504, 507, and Section 66C of the Information Technology Act,2000 (IT Act)
• Respondents are given four weeks to file a counter-affidavit, with an additional two weeks for any rejoinder affidavit.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court issued its order based on the revelation from an independent inquiry, indicating that the allegations against the teacher were fabricated to conceal actions of the student.
• The inquiry panel found that during a dance competition, the student obtained the teacher's mobile number and subsequently created fake IDs using her phone, initiating inappropriate conversations and pressure.
  • The Commissioner of Police, Kanpur, was instructed to transfer the investigation to the cyber cell to determine if the student had created fake accounts using the teacher's phone or ID.
• The court orders that no coercive action will be taken against the petitioners, and they will not be arrested in pursuance of the instant FIR.
• The Court emphasized the need to probe the role of the student and his father, the informant, as they could face criminal prosecution if the inquiry findings are validated.

What is the Legal Provision of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act?

• There isn't any specific "Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act" in India at the national level.
  • Some states have introduced laws related to religious conversions, often referred to as anti-conversion laws.
  • These laws typically aim to regulate or restrict religious conversions, particularly conversions that are alleged to be coerced or fraudulent.
• Uttar Pradesh has passed the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, which aims to prevent religious conversions through force, fraud, or inducement, or for marriage.
  • This ordinance requires individuals wishing to convert to obtain permission from the district magistrate at least two months in advance.
  • Violation of this ordinance can lead to criminal penalties.

What is the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021?

• The Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly passed the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act in 2021, replacing the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020, which was promulgated in November 2020.
• The ordinance was cleared by the UP-State Assembly on 24th November 2020, later approved and signed by State Governor Anandiben Patel on 28th November 2020.
• Applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, it serves as an anti-conversion law enacted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
• The Act prohibits unlawful conversion from one religion to another through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, fraudulent means, or by marriage.
• Section 4 of the Act outlines the individuals authorized to file a FIR.
  • It allows any aggrieved person, their parents, siblings, or any other person related to them by blood, marriage, or adoption to lodge an FIR for conversion that contravenes the provisions of Section 3.

What are the Punishments under UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021?

• Under Section 3 of the anti-conversion law, individuals found guilty may face punishment as outlined in Section 5.
• The standard penalty includes imprisonment ranging from 1 to 5 years and a fine of at least Rs. 15,000.
• However, if the victim is a woman, a minor, or belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the penalty increases to imprisonment ranging from 2 to 10 years and a fine of at least Rs. 25,000.
• In cases of mass conversion, the punishment is more severe, with imprisonment ranging from 3 to 10 years and a fine of at least Rs. 50,000.
• Repeated offender under this law, up to double the relevant punishment may be provided imposed.
• Section 6 of the Act prohibits "any marriage conducted solely for unlawful conversion" and stipulates that such marriages shall be deemed "void".

What is the Major Case Related to Unlawful Conversion?

• Jose Papachen and Another v. State of UP,2023 court held that only a person who has been converted, his/ her parents, brother, sister, or any other person who is related to him/ her by blood, marriage, or adoption may lodge a FIR pertaining to the allegation of such conversion and no one else.