List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, Roshan Lal Alias v. State of U.P. and Another gained attention due to the Allahabad High Court's decision to set aside a summoning order issued by a magistrate in Azamgarh.

• The High Court found that the magistrate had mechanically used a pre-printed proforma, failing to apply judicial mind while issuing the order.

What was the Background of Roshan Lal Alias Roshan Rajbhar and Others v. State of U.P. and

Another?

• A criminal case was initiated against Roshan Lal before the Additional Civil Judge (Judicial Division) / Judicial Magistrate in Azamgarh.
• In July 2022, the Magistrate issued a cognizance and summoning order in this case.
• Roshan Lal filed a plea challenging the cognizance and summoning order from July 2022 and the ongoing proceedings in the criminal case.
• He claimed to have been falsely implicated in the criminal case and He alleged that the opposite party filed the case to harass him and exert undue pressure.
• Roshan Lal argued that the dispute between them was purely civil in nature, not criminal.
• The Court reviewed the challenged order issued by the Magistrate.
• It was observed that the Magistrate had used a printed proforma for the order. And the Magistrate had placed his abbreviated signature above the court's seal on this proforma.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court set aside the cognizance and summoning order issued by the Magistrate court in Azamgarh in the case under Sections 434 (mischief) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The Court stated that while passing any judicial order, including an order taking cognizance of a chargesheet, the concerned court is obligated to apply judicial mind. The order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in a mechanical manner.
• The Court found the impugned summoning/cognizance order dated 25th July 2022 to be legally unsustainable. The order, prepared by filling blanks on a printed proforma in a mechanical manner, demonstrated a clear non-application of judicial mind, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice.
• The Court noted that the learned Magistrate merely filled in specific details such as the case number, name of the accused, relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, name of the police station, date of order issuance, and the next scheduled date. This action was deemed insufficient to constitute a proper application of judicial mind.
• The Court observed that the impugned cognizance and summoning order did not reflect any consideration by the learned Magistrate regarding the sufficiency of material on record to proceed against the accused-applicant before taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 434 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The Court, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and secure the ends of justice, found it necessary to entertain the present Application in the exercise of its power under Section 482 of CrPC.

What is Section 210 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)?

• Section 210 of BNSS deals with the power of the magistrate to take cognizance of an offence earlier it was given under Section 190 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)
• This Section deals with the cognizance of offences by magistrates. It states that
  • Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence-
    • upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence
    • upon a police report of such facts
    • upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or
    • upon his own knowledge, that such an offence has been committed.
• The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.
• If a magistrate has taken cognizance of any offence under Section 190(1) (a) or (b) and if the magistrate was not empowered by the law to take cognizance based on the lack of jurisdiction, then the proceedings conducted by him in furtherance of taking of cognizance will not be set aside as long as it is known that the cognizance was taken in good faith.
• The accused's presence is not required for taking cognizance under this section.
• A magistrate can also order the investigation of cognizable offences under the power given to him by Section 210 of BNSS.

Case Law

• The State of West Bengal v. Abani Kumar Banerjee (1950) - In this case, the Calcutta High Court discussed the scope of the words taking cognizance and stated that this term is not defined anywhere in CrPC but keeping in mind the circumstances of the case, it can be said that a magistrate is said to have taken cognizance when he applies his judicial mind in a case.

Source: The Hindu

Why in News?

The recent allegations on the malpractices in the NEET examination and paper leak in NET examination have led to discussions related to the law relating to the public examinations.

What is the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024?

Introduction

• The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, enacted on 12th February 2024, is aimed at preserving the integrity of public examinations in India.
• This Act addresses the growing concern of malpractices in examinations conducted by various public authorities.

Offences:

• Unfair Means (Section 3)
  • Leakage of Question Papers or Answer Keys: This involves unauthorized disclosure of examination questions or answer keys before the official start of the exam. Such leaks can severely compromise the integrity of the examination process.
  • Collusion for Leakage: Participating in any form of conspiracy or collaboration with others to facilitate the leakage of question papers or answer keys. This offense recognizes the organized nature of some examination frauds.
  • Unauthorized Access to Examination Materials: Accessing or taking possession of question papers or Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) response sheets without proper authority. This includes any attempt to obtain exam materials through illicit means.
  • Providing Unauthorized Solutions: Offering solutions to exam questions by any unauthorized person during the examination. This could involve external individuals communicating answers to candidates.
  • Unauthorized Assistance to Candidates: Directly or indirectly assisting candidates in any unauthorized manner during the examination. This broad category covers various forms of cheating assistance.
  • Tampering with Answer Sheets: Altering or manipulating answer sheets, including OMR response sheets, after the examination has concluded.
  • Unauthorized Assessment Alteration: Changing the assessment of exam papers, except to correct genuine errors, without proper authorization.
  • Violation of Examination Norms: Willfully violating norms or standards set by the Central Government for the conduct of public examinations.
  • Document Tampering: Manipulating any documents used for shortlisting candidates or finalizing merit lists and rankings.
  • Security Breaches: Deliberately violating security measures put in place to prevent unfair means in examinations.
  • Computer System Tampering: Interfering with or manipulating computer networks, resources, or systems used in the examination process.
  • Manipulation of Examination Arrangements: Altering seating arrangements, allocation of dates, or shifts for candidates to facilitate cheating.
  • Threats and Obstruction: Threatening or obstructing individuals associated with the examination authority, service providers, or government agencies involved in exam conduct.
  • Cyber Crimes: Creating fake websites to deceive candidates or for monetary gain and conducting fake examinations.
• Conspiracy for Unfair Means (Section 4)
  • This section prohibits any person, group of persons, or institutions from colluding or conspiring to facilitate the use of unfair means in examinations. It recognizes that examination fraud often involves coordinated efforts by multiple parties.
• Disruption to Conduct Public Examination (Section 5)
  • Unauthorized Entry: Prohibits unauthorized persons from entering examination premises with the intent to disrupt the exam.
  • Premature Access to Question Papers: Forbids authorized personnel from opening, leaking, possessing, accessing, or solving question papers before the official start time.
  • Unauthorized Disclosure of Confidential Information: Prevents the sharing of confidential exam-related information for monetary or wrongful gain.
  • Breach of Confidentiality: Prohibits authorized personnel from revealing information gained through their official duties, except when required for their job.
• Other Offences (Section 6)
  • This section mandates that service providers must report any offences under Sections 3, 4, and 5 to the police and inform the public examination authority. If the service provider itself is involved in unfair means, the examination authority must report this to the police.
• No Premises Other Than Examination Centre Shall Be Used for Public Examination (Section 7)
  • This section makes it an offence for service providers or associated persons to use any premises other than the authorized examination center for conducting exams, without written approval from the public examination authority.
  • An exception is made for changes due to force majeure events.
• Offences in Respect of Service Providers and Other Persons (Section 8)
  • Unauthorized Assistance: Makes it an offence for any person, including those associated with service providers, to assist anyone unauthorized in the conduct of public examinations.
  • Failure to Report: Service providers or associated persons commit an offence if they fail to report incidents of unfair means or other offences.
  • Corporate Liability: If an offence by a service provider is committed with the consent or connivance of any director, manager, secretary, or other officer, such individuals can also be held liable.

What are the Punishments Provided under the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024?

• Nature of Offences (Section 9):
  • All offences are cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable.
• General Offences (Section 10(1)):
  • Imprisonment: 3-5 years
  • Fine: Up to ₹10 lakhs
• Service Provider Offences (Section 10(2)):
  • Fine: Up to ₹1 crore
  • Barred from conducting exams for 4 years
  • Recovery of proportionate examination costs
• Offences by Senior Management (Section 10(3)):
  • Imprisonment: 3-10 years
  • Fine: ₹1 crore
• Organized Crimes (Section 11(1)):
  • Imprisonment: 5-10 years
  • Fine: Not less than ₹1 crore
• Institutional Involvement in Organized Crime (Section 11(2)):
  • Property attachment and forfeiture
  • Recovery of proportionate examination costs

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Federal Bank Officer's Association has held that no fundamental right to protest at any place the agitator pleases, and reasonable restriction can be imposed on the exercise of such right if proved to exist.

What was the Background of The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Federal Bank Officer's Association Case?

• In this case, the petitioner is the Federal Bank Ltd., is a banking company.
• The respondent is the Federal Bank Officers' Association, a trade union which comprises officers in the cadre of Scale 1 to III of the petitioner's Bank as its members.
• The Bank filed a suit before the Munisff ‘s Court for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the union, its members and supporters from obstructing the bank officials and customers from dealing with the bank.
• A temporary injunction was granted by the trial Court restricting demonstration within a 200-meter radius of the Bank premises.
• In appeal, the District Court modified this order and directed that the agitators be restrained from holding any demonstration in a manner obstructing peaceful functioning of the Bank.
• Thereafter, a petition was filed before the Kerala High Court.
• The High Court restricted any demonstrations, dharnas, shouting slogans within 50 meters from the premises of the offices of the bank.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Single bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) is not absolute, and it must be exercised in a way as not to interfere with the right of the employer to carry on their lawful business. The court said freedom of speech and expression cannot interfere with the right of someone else to enjoy property or carry on business.
• It was further held that this right also cannot be exercised in such a way as to intimidate the employers into submission.

What is the Right to Protest?

About:

• The Right to Protest is not an explicit right under the Fundamental rights, it can be derived from the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19 of the COI.
• These rights, in cohesion, enable every citizen to assemble peacefully and protest against the action or inaction of the State.
• Right to Protest ensures that people can act as watchdogs and constantly monitor governments' acts.
• It provides feedback to the governments about their policies and actions after which the concerned government, through consultation, meetings and discussion, recognizes and rectifies its mistakes.

Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 19(1)(a): The Right to free speech and expression transforms into the right to freely express an opinion on the conduct of the government.
• Article 19(1)(b): The Right to association is required to form associations for political purposes. These can be formed to collectively challenge government decisions.
• Article 19(1)(c): The Right to peaceably assemble allows people to question and object to acts of the government by demonstrations, agitations and public meetings, to launch sustained protest movements.

Restriction on Right to Protest:

• Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression. These reasonable restrictions are imposed in the interests of the following:
  • Sovereignty and integrity of India,
  • Security of the State
  • Friendly relations with foreign States,
  • Public order
  • Decency or morality
  • Contempt of court
  • Defamation
  • Incitement to an offence

Case Laws

• Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India & Ors. case (2012), the Supreme Court had stated that citizens have a fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest which cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive or legislative action.
• Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs Union of India and Anr. (2018), the Supreme Court tried to balance the interests of local residents with those of protesters to hold demonstrations and directed the police to devise a proper mechanism for limited use of the area for peaceful protests and demonstrations and to lay down parameters for this