List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sandeep Mehta held that the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained as he was not examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and as a result there was material prejudice caused to the accused. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Delhi. 

What is the Background of Naresh Kumar v. State of Delhi Case? 

• The wife of Appellant, accused, Meena said filthy words to Laxmi enraged by a certain act of Laxmi. 
•  The Appellant too started abusing her and the deceased, Arun Kumar asked him to stop the abuses. 
• The Appellant exhorted his brother, Mahinder Kumar, to come out and finish him. 
• Mahinder came out with the knife and the appellant caught hold of the deceased and Mahinder stabbed his chest repeatedly with a knife. 
• The Appellant has challenged the confirmation of his conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 34 of IPC. 
• The case of the Appellant was that there was noncompliance of Section 313 of CrPC that has caused prejudice to the appellant.   

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that Section 313 of CrPC embodies the salutary principle of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem. 
• It is well established that non examination or inadequate examination of accused under Section 313 of CrPC by itself would not vitiate the trial of the convict unless it has resulted in material prejudice to the accused or caused miscarriage of justice. 
• Thus, the issue before the Court was whether there was material prejudice caused to the accused. 
• The two incriminating circumstances on which there was no examination under Section 313 of CrPC were:  
  • That the appellant exhorted to kill Arun Kumar and others 
  • The appellant caught hold of the deceased to enable Mahinder Kumar to stab on his chest repeatedly.  
• The Court held that there was material prejudice and blatant miscarriage of justice because: 
  • The appellant shared the common intention was based on the two incriminating circumstances which were not put to the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC. 
  • Ultimately as a result of trial conviction was done under Section 302 of IPC with the aid of Section 34 of IPC and the appellant was awarded with life imprisonment consequently. 
• The Court finally held that the incident occurred more than 29 years ago, and the appellant had already undergone incarceration for more than 12 years, hence, if he is again subjected to examination under Section 313 of CrPC it would cause further prejudice them. 
• Hence, it was held that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.  

What is Examination of Accused Under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973?  

• Section 313(1) of CrPC provides that in every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court- 
  • May at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary. 
  • Shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defense, question him generally on the case. 
• Provided that in a summons case, where the Court has dispensed with the   personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b). 
• Section 313 (2) provides that no oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1). 
• Clause (3) provides that the accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.  
• Clause (4) provides that the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.  
• Clause (5) provides that the Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section. 
• Section 351 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides for the same.  

What are the Landmark Cases on Section 313 of CrPC? 

• Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023): 
  • The law under Section 313 of CrPC was summarized in this case as follows: 
  • It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material circumstance appearing in evidence against the accused separately, specifically and distinctively.  
  • Material circumstance is a circumstance on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking conviction. 
  • The object is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing in evidence against him. 
  • The Court must eschew the material circumstance not put to the accused from consideration while dealing with the case of the accused. 
  • The failure to put material circumstance to the accused amounts to serious irregularity and will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have caused prejudice to the accused.  
  • If irregularity in putting material circumstance to the accused does not result in failure of justice, it is a curable defect. While deciding whether the defect can be cured one of the considerations is the passage of time from the date of incident. 
  • In case the irregularity is curable even the Appellate Court can question the accused on material circumstances not put to him. 
  • The case can be remanded to the Trial Court in a given case from the stage of recording the supplementary statement of the accused under Section 313. 
  • While deciding if prejudice is caused to the accused the delay in raising the contention is only one of the several factors to be considered.   
• Shobit Chamar and Anr v. State of Bihar (1998): 
  • Where a plea of non-compliance with Section 313 was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court and it is proved that no prejudice is caused to the accused it cannot be said that the trial was vitiated. 
• Indrakunwar v. State of Chattisgarh (2023): 
  • The Supreme Court again laid down the law on Section 313 of CrPC: 
    • The intent of the section is to establish a dialogue between the Court and the accused. 
    • The accused may or may not admit his involvement or may even offer an alternative version of events or interpretation. 
    • The statement cannot be made the sole basis of conviction and is neither a substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. 
    • It does not discharge but reduces the burden of prosecution. 
    • This statement is to read as a whole and one part cannot be read in isolation. 
    • Such a statement is not on oath and hence cannot qualify as evidence under Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA); however inculpatory aspect of the statement may be used to lend credence to the case of the prosecution. 
    • The circumstances not put to the accused should not be considered as no opportunity has been afforded to explain them. 
    • The Court must put in the form of questions all incriminating circumstances to the accused. 
•  Jai Prakash Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022): 
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that Section 313 of CrPC confers a valuable right upon the accused to establish his innocence and can be considered as a constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
  • The Court also held that all the circumstances must not be bundled together as such exercise would defeat fair opportunity and is nothing but empty formality. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Har Narayan Tewari (D) Thr. Lrs, v. Cantonment Board, Ramgarh Cantonment & Ors.  has held that if there is a conflict of interest between the co-defendants then the principle of Res Judicata shall be applicable to co-defendants also. 

What was the Background of the Har Narayan Tewari (D) Thr. Lrs. Versus Cantonment Board, Ramgarh Cantonment & Ors. Case? 

• In the previous suit, the plaintiff and the defendants of the present suit were codefendants. 
• In the present suit the plaintiff filed a suit claiming the land in the suit. 
  • The plaintiff claimed his rights and possession on the land which was transferred to him by the proprietor Raja by way of Raiyati settlement. 
  • The other piece of the property was given to Cantonment Board by Raja temporarily which was claimed by the board. 
  • The trial court ordered in the favor of the plaintiff. 
• The 1st appeal to the Patna High Court was made by the defendant, who reversed the trial court's order and decreed in favor of the defendant stating that the suit is barred as per the Principle of Res Judicata. 
• The plaintiff filed a 2nd Appeal to the Patna High Court against the defendant, the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff and the codefendants in the previous suit were not suited properly. 
  • The claims were not adjudicated, and mere adjudication of Maharani’s rights does not suffice the rights of the defendants. 
  • The High Court dismissed the appeal because there is no substantial question of law that arises in the suit as per Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC).  
• The plaintiff filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• It was observed by the Supreme Court that in the previous suit the plaintiff was claiming the suit land of the present suit while the defendant was claiming his right in the estate of Raja. 
  • It implies that there was no direct or indirect conflict between the parties of the present suit in the previous suit. 
  • Therefore, the Supreme Court held that there should be no applicability of the Principle of Res Judicata as per section 11 of CPC and also referred to the landmark case Govindammal v. Vaidiyanathan (2017) to establish the essentials of the principle. 
• It was also noted by the Supreme Court that the rights of the defendants were not adjudicated by the court and only clarity was given on the rights of Maharani in the whole land of the Raja. 
  • Here, it was also said that the disputed land between the plaintiff and the defendant is the subject matter of dispute and not the whole land of Raja.  
  • The Supreme Court also held that there is a substantial question of law in the instant matter as the rights of the parties were not determined in the previous suit. 

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Referred to in this Case? 

Section 11 of CPC - Res judicata 

• No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. 
• Explanation I: The expression "former suit" shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.  
• Explanation II: For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.  
• Explanation III: The matter referred to above must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.  
• Explanation IV: Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.  
• Explanation V: Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.  
• Explanation VI: Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.  
• Explanation VII: The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to proceedings for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.  
• Explanation VIII: An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. 

Section 100 of CPC - Second appeal 

• Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.  
• An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.  
• In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.  
• Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.  
• The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question.  
• Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question. 

What is the Principle of Res Judicata? 

• This principle simply means that nothing should be adjudicated twice or no subsequent suit should be filed for the same issue which has been already decided by the court. 
• The principle of Res Judicata is based upon three Latin maxims: 
  • Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium: it means that it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation. 
  • Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa: it means that, no man should be vexed for the same reason twice.  
  • Res Judicata Pro Veritate Occipitur: it means that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct. in case where, there is a conflict in judgment then it leads to embarrassment of judiciary. 

What is Landmark Judgement Based on the Applicability of Principle of Res Judicata on Co defendants? 

• Govindammal v. Vaidiyanathan (2017): Three conditions that are necessary to be fulfilled in applying the principle of res judicata between the co-defendants were laid down this case as: 
  • There must be a conflict of interest between the co-defendants; 
  • There is necessity to decide the said conflict to give relief to the plaintiff; and 
  • There is a final decision adjudicating the said conflict.

Source:  Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

The Allahabad High Court recently in matter of Shriniwas Rav Nayak v. State of U.P. Court observes the distinction between individual freedom of religious expression and the collective act of proselytization. The court emphasized that while individuals have the right to freely choose and practice their religion under the Constitution, they cannot convert others to their faith.  

What was the Background of Shriniwas Rav Nayak v. State of U.P.?

• The applicant is involved in Case, under Sections 3/5 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. 
• The incident occurred on 15th February 2024 at the house of co-accused Vishwanath in Nichlaul, District Maharajganj. 
• The informant was invited to Vishwanath's house, where he found many villagers, mostly from the Scheduled Castes community. 
• Present at the house were co-accused Vishwanath, his brother Brijlal, the applicant, and one Ravindra. 
•  The informant was asked to leave Hinduism and accept Christianity, with promises of ending pain and progress in life. 
• Some villagers had reportedly accepted Christianity and started praying. 
• The informant escaped and informed the police. 
• The applicant claims to be a domestic help of one of the co-accused and a resident of Andhra Pradesh. 
• The applicant's counsel argued that the FIR doesn't identify any "religion converter" as defined by the Act. 
• The prosecution contends that mass conversion was taking place, and the applicant was actively participating. 
• Police recorded statements of independent witnesses confirming the conversion event. 
•  The court found prima facie evidence of unlawful religious conversion under the Act. 
• The court rejected the bail application, citing that the Act prohibits religious conversion under Section 3, punishable under Section 5. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 statement of objects and reasons was to prohibit unlawful conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, fraudulent means, or by marriage. 
• The Court reiterated that while the Constitution of India guarantees religious freedom, the individual right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be extended to construe a collective right to proselytize. 
• The Court emphasized that Section 3 of the Act explicitly prohibits conversion from one religion to another based on misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, and allurement. 
• The Court noted that Article 25 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) while providing for freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, does not permit any citizen to convert another citizen from one religion to another. 
• The Court observed that the Act of 2021 was enacted in consonance with the constitutional provision. 

What is Article 25 of COI? 

• Legal Provision: 
  • Article 25 deals with freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.  
    • Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. 
    • Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law:  
      • (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; 
      • (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. 
• About Article 25: 
  • It guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion to all persons. 
  • This right is subject to public order, morality, and health. 
  • It allows the state to regulate or restrict economic, financial, political, or other secular activities associated with religious practices. 
  • It permits the state to make laws for social welfare and reform, including opening Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus. 
  • The Article includes two explanations:  
    • Explanation I: Wearing and carrying of kirpans is deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. 
    • Explanation II: The reference to Hindus includes persons professing Sikh, Jaina, or Buddhist religions, and Hindu religious institutions are construed accordingly. 
  • While it guarantees the right to propagate religion, it does not include the right to convert another person to one's own religion, as clarified by the Supreme Court in various judgments. 
  • The freedom is available to all persons, including citizens and non-citizens. 

What are the Major Judicial Pronouncements on Freedom of Religion? 

• Bijoe Emmanuel and Ors. v. State of Kerala (1986): 
  • In this case, three children of Jehovah’s Witnesses sect were suspended from the school as they refused to sing the national anthem claiming that it is against the tenets of their faith.  
  • The court held that expulsion is violative of fundamental rights and the right to freedom of religion. 
• Acharya Jagdishwar Anand v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (1983): 
  • The Court held that Ananda Marga is not a separate religion but a religious denomination. And the performance of Tandava on public streets is not an essential practice of Ananda Marga. 
• M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994): 
  • The apex court held that the mosque is not an essential practice of Islam, and a Muslim can offer namaz (prayer) anywhere even in the open. 
• Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay (1954):  
  • The Supreme Court held that religious practices are as much a part of religion as religious faith or doctrines. 
  • However, the Court also stated that this protection extends only to essential and integral parts of religion. 
• Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954):  
  • This case established the "essential religious practices" test. 
  • The Court held that what constitutes an essential part of a religion is to be determined with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself. 
• Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962):  
  • The Court held that the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community had the right to excommunicate its members as it was an essential religious practice. 
• Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977):  
  • The Court held that the right to propagate religion under Article 25 does not include the right to convert another person to one's own religion. 
  • This judgment upheld the validity of anti-conversion laws. 
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) - Sabarimala Temple case:  
  • The Court held that the practice of prohibiting women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple was not an essential religious practice. 
• It emphasized that constitutional morality must prevail over religious beliefs and practices.