List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerela High Court

Why in News?

• A bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that there was no evidence on record to show that the accused intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
  • The Kerela High Court held this in the case of Murali @ Muralidharan v. State of Kerela.

What is the Background of Murali @ Muralidharan v. State of Kerela Case?

• The deceased hanged himself to death on 6^th March 2016 after writing two suicide notes naming petitioners as persons responsible for his death.
• The allegation in the two suicide notes was that petitioners had filed a complaint in the police station against the deceased persons and when he was called upon by the police for investigation, he committed suicide.
• The petitioners filed application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.c).

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court observed that Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for abetment to suicide and the word ‘abetment’ is defined in Section 107 of IPC.
• The offence of abetment will arise only when there is an instigation or goading by the accused to commit suicide.
  • This act of goading must be proximate in time to the act of suicide.
• Filing of complaint before lawful authority cannot be considered as instigation as the intention in filing the compliant is not to instigate or goad the accused to commit suicide.

What is Abetment to Suicide under Section 106 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)?

• Section 106 of BNS provides if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• The provision was in the form of Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

What are Landmark Cases on Abetment to Suicide?

• Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal (2005)
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that an offence under Section 306 of IPC will stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of crime.
  • The parameters of abetment are defined under Section 107 of IPC (Section 45 of BNS) and must be construed accordingly.
  • The Court observed that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased.
• Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2024)
  • The Court observed that abetment to suicide arises only when the accused had acted with an intention to bring about suicide of the concerned person.
• Mahendra Singh and Another Gayatribai v. State of M.P (1995)
  • The Supreme Court considered the definition of the word 'abetment' under Section 107 I.P.C. and held that a mere allegation of harassment of the deceased would not be sufficient to attract the offence of abetment to commit suicide.

Source: Patna High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Patna High Court in the matter of Radhe Yadav v. Prabhas Yadav has held that oral evidence is acceptable to verify the contents of documents when plot number in sale deed is in question.

What was the Background of the Radhe Yadav v. Prabhas Yadav Case?

• In this case, the petitioner filed a case for the declaration of title of the land and for accepting oral evidence as the plot number was misdescribed in the deed and was a mistake of fact.
• The petitioner was disallowed by the Munsif Court to cross examine the defendant based on the boundary of plot numbers 659 and 654 of the land in suit.
• It was stated that as per section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) oral evidence cannot be accepted to alter the contents of the document.
• A review petition was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the trial court.
• Later, the petitioner in the present case filed a civil miscellaneous petition in the Patna High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court observed and made a wider interpretation of section 91 and section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The court stated that section 91 and section 92 of IEA are based on “the best evidence rule”.
• It was stated that when superior evidence is available then inferior evidence cannot be produced to contradict the same.
• It was observed by the court that in the present case section 91 of the IEA cannot be applied because as per section 92 of the IEA, which allows any fact can be produced to invalidate the document produced by fraud, mistake subject to, the mistake should be genuine and accidental.
• It was observed that section 91 and section 92 are supplementary to each other.
• It was held that oral evidence can be produced to prove any misdescriptions in the sale deed.

What is Section 95 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)?

• Section 95 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) states that if the document's terms have been proved in Section 94 of BSA, no other evidence is to be produced except in certain conditions.
  • This provision was earlier covered under Section 92 of the IEA.
• When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms;
• Proviso (1): Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law:
• Proviso (2): The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document:
• Proviso (3): The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved.
• Proviso (4): The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents.
• Proviso (5): Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved;
• Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with the express terms of the contract:
• Proviso (6): Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts.

What are the Landmark Judgements?

• Jahuri Sah & Ors. v. Dwarka Prasad Jhunjhunwala & Ors (1967): In this case the Supreme court held that to prove the contents of adoption deed oral evidence is admissible.
• M. D. Gopalaiah v. Smt. Usha Priyadarshini and Ors (2002): In this case it was held that when there is an error in the digits mentioned in a document then oral evidence is admissible.
• Chimanram Motilal v. Divnchand Govidram (1932): In this case it was held that when there is a mistake in the contents of the document then to prove them oral evidence is admissible.

Source: Madras High Court

Why in News?

The Madras High Court recently in the matter of Gokul Abhimanyu v Union of India and Another dismissed a writ petition seeking a reduction of the application fee for the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE) conducted by the Bar Council of India. The bench ruled that there was no statutory provision prescribing the AIBE fee, unlike the enrolment fee under the Advocates Act.

• The court found that the current fee of Rs. 3,500 (Rs. 2,500 for SC/ST candidates) was not exorbitant and saw no grounds for interference.
• The Bench elucidated that a Writ of Mandamus necessitates the demonstration of a legal right, which was absent in the instant case.
• This ruling highlights the distinction between statutory fees and examination fees in the legal profession.

What was the Background of Gokul Abhimanyu v. Union of India and Another?

• A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in public interest.
• The petition seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent (presumably the Bar Council of India) to reduce the application fee for the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE).
• The petitioner's main contention is that the quantum of the AIBE application fee should be reduced.
• The petitioner had previously made a representation dated 19^th January 2024 regarding this matter.
• The petitioner's counsel reiterated the contentions set out in the affidavit supporting the writ petition.
• The court was not impressed by the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel.
• The case involves a discussion of the Advocates Act, 1961, particularly Section 24(1)(f), which stipulates enrolment fees for State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India.
• A separate writ petition regarding excessive enrolment fees charged by State Bar Councils is pending before the Supreme Court of India (Gaurav Kumar V. Union of India,2023.
• The current case, however, specifically pertains to the examination fee for the All-India Bar Examination, not the enrolment fee.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court noted the distinction between enrolment fees prescribed under the Advocates Act and the AIBE application fee, which lacks statutory provision.
• The Bench elucidated that a Writ of Mandamus necessitates the demonstration of a legal right, which was absent in the instant case.
  • Notwithstanding the absence of a statutory violation, the Court acknowledged its authority to intervene if the fee quantum were deemed exorbitant.
• Upon examination, the Court determined that the current AIBE application fee of Rs. 3,500/- (Rs. 2,500/- for SC/ST candidates) did not constitute an exorbitant amount.
• The Court referenced Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, delineating the prescribed enrolment fees for State Bar Councils (Rs. 600/-) and the Bar Council of India (Rs. 150/-).
• The Court dismissed the petition as no grounds for interference with the current AIBE application fee structure and dismissed the writ petition.

What are Rights in Law?

About:

• Rights are legally recognized and enforceable entitlements or freedoms that individuals or entities possess.
• They represent interests that are protected by law, allowing the right-holder to act in certain ways or require others to act in specific manners.
• Rights may derive from statutes, common law, or constitutional provisions, with varying levels of protection and enforcement mechanisms.
• Rights are often subject to reasonable limitations and may need to be balanced against other competing rights or societal interests in certain situations.

Types of Rights in law

• Constitutional Rights (Fundamental rights): It’s a right guaranteed by a nation’s constitution (e.g., right to life, liberty, equality).
• Legal Rights: Enforceable rights recognized by the legal system.
• Statutory Rights: Rights created and defined by legislation or statutes.
• Common Law Rights: Rights developed through judicial decisions over time.
• Human Rights: Universal rights inherent to all human beings, often recognized internationally.
• Civil Rights: Rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.
• Property Rights: Rights related to ownership and use of property.
• Contractual Rights: Rights arising from agreements between parties.
• Intellectual Property Rights: Rights related to the creations of the mind (e.g., patents, copyrights).
• Consumer Rights: Rights protecting consumers in commercial transactions.
• Moral Rights: Rights based on principles of ethics or morality, which may or may not be legally recognized.

What is Legal Right in India?

• Legal rights are enforceable claims or entitlements granted by law.
• They can stem from various sources including the Constitution, statutes, judicial decisions, and contracts.
• Legal rights are backed by the state's authority and can be enforced through courts.
• They define the relationship between individuals, and between individuals and the state.
• Examples include property rights, contractual rights, and consumer rights.

What are Fundamental Rights in India?

• Fundamental Rights in Indian law are constitutional guarantees enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
• They include the Right to Equality, Right to Freedom, Right against Exploitation, Right to Freedom of Religion, Cultural and Educational Rights, and Right to Constitutional Remedies.
• These rights are essential for individual liberty and dignity, protecting citizens from state overreach.
• However, they can be subject to reasonable restrictions in certain circumstances for public interest.

What is the Difference Between Legal Right and Fundamental Right?

• Source: Fundamental Rights are enshrined in the Constitution, while Legal Rights come from various laws, statutes, and judicial decisions.
• Permanence: Fundamental Rights are more permanent and difficult to change, requiring constitutional amendments. Legal Rights can be modified or repealed through normal legislative processes.
• Scope: Fundamental Rights are universal and apply to all citizens (with some exceptions), while Legal Rights may be specific to certain groups or situations.
• Enforceability: Fundamental Rights can be directly enforced by the Supreme Court, while Legal Rights are typically enforced through lower courts first.
• Nature: Fundamental Rights are considered essential for human dignity and democracy, whereas Legal Rights cover a broader range of civil, criminal, and regulatory matters.
• Constitutional Remedies: The right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement is itself a Fundamental Right for Fundamental Rights, which isn't the case for Legal Rights.