List of Current Affairs

Source: High Court of Delhi 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held that by virtue of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) the practice of photography and videography has now been made mandatory. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Bantu v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi.

What is the Background of Bantu v. State Govt NCT of Delhi Case? 

• The case of prosecution is that the concerned police officer received information that the applicant used to supply ‘charas’ in Delhi after procuring from Himachal Pradesh. 
• A raid was conducted, and the applicant was apprehended. 
• A notice under Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) was served upon the accused. 
• It is alleged that during search one bag of charas was recovered from the possession of applicant. 
• The present application was filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking grant of regular bail. 
• The Learned Trial Court dismissed the regular bail application and hence the present application. 
• Case of the Prosecution: 
  • It was the case of the applicant that the word ‘nearest’ was missing in the notice served to the applicant under Section 50 of NDPS Act. 
  • The applicant stated that there was non-examination of independent witnesses. 
  • The applicant also stated that the police failed to conduct videography or photography of the search.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court did not accept the first contention and held not mentioning the word ‘nearest’ at the time of informing the suspect of his right to be searched before the the Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate does not in any manner takes away the safeguard. 
• With respect to non-examination of independent witnesses the Court cited several judgements. 
  • The Court concluded that while reliable testimonies of police officials can form the basis of conviction, lack of corroboration from independent witnesses cast a duty on the Court to exercise caution.  
• Finally, on the last contention the Court held that mere absence of videography and photography of the recovery does not nullify the case of the prosecution but the same can create doubt as to veracity of the prosecution case. 
• The Court also observed that the legislature has now passed the BNSS where the practice of videography and photography is now mandatory. 
  • Photography and videography are universally accepted as the best practices for better erudition and appreciation of the evidence 
  •  The same ensures that the prosecution is able to better document the recovery during the investigation. 
  • BNSS stipulates that the proceedings of search and seizure shall be recorded through any audio – video means preferably through a mobile phone. 
• The Court also observed that there has been a prolonged delay in the trial of the applicant. 
• Hence, the Court finally granted bail to the applicant.  

Bail under Section 439 of CrPC 

• Section 439 of CrPC provides for special powers of High Court or Court of Session to grant bail. 
• Sub-section (1) provides a High Court or Court of Session may direct - 
  • That any person accused of an offence and in custody, be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of Section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section; 
  • that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified : 
  • Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice.  
  • Provided further that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence triable under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice of such application. 
  • Sub-section (1A) provides that the presence of the informant or any person authorized by him shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code. 
  • Sub-section (2) provides that a High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.  
  • The same is provided under Section 483 of BNSS. 

What are the Provisions for Search and Seizure under CrPC? 

• Section 100 of CrPC provides provisions relating to persons in charge of a closed place to allow search. 
• This provision finds place in BNSS under Section 103. 
  • Sub-section (1) provides whenever any place liable to search or inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein. 
  • Sub-section (2) provides that if ingress into such place cannot be so obtained, the officer or other person executing the warrant may proceed in the manner provided by sub-section (2) of section 47. 
  • Sub-section (3) provides that where any person in or about such place is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made, such person may be searched and if such person is a woman, the search shall be made by another woman with strict regard to decency. 
  • Sub-section (4) provides that before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. 
  • Sub-section (5) provides that the search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it. 
  • Sub-section (6) provides that the occupant of the place searched, or some person in his behalf, shall, in every instance, be permitted to attend during the search, and a copy of the list prepared under this section, signed by the said witnesses, shall be delivered to such occupant or person. 
  • Sub-section (7) provides that when any person is searched under sub-section (3), a list of all things taken possession of shall be prepared, and a copy thereof shall be delivered to such person. 
  • Sub-section (8) provides that any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• Section 165 of CrPC provides for search by police officer. 
  • Sub-section (1) provides that Whenever an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making an investigation has reasonable grounds for believing that anything necessary for the purposes of an investigation into any offence which he is authorised to investigate may be found in any place within the limits of the police station of which he is in charge, or to which he is attached, and that such thing cannot in his opinion be otherwise obtained without undue delay, such officer may, after recording in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made, search, or cause search to be made, for such thing in any place within the limits of such station. 
  • Sub-section (2) provides that a police officer proceeding under sub-section (1), shall, if practicable, conduct the search in person. 
  • Sub-section (3) provides that If he is unable to conduct the search in person, and there is no other person competent to make the search present at the time, he may, after recording in writing his reasons for so doing, require any officer subordinate to him to make the search, and he shall deliver to such subordinate officer an order in writing, specifying the place to be searched, and so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made; and such subordinate officer may thereupon search for such thing in such place. 
  • Sub-section (4) provides that The provisions of this Code as to search-warrants and the general provisions as to searches contained in section 100 shall, so far as may be, apply to a search made under this section. 
  • Sub-section (5) provides that copies of any record made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall forthwith be sent to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, and the owner or occupier of the place searched shall, on application, be furnished, free of cost, with a copy of the same by the Magistrate. 

Comparison between Section 165 of CrPC and Section 185 of BNSS? 

• The comparative analysis of the two provisions is as follows: 

What are the Provisions with Regards to Audio-video Electronic Means for Investigation and Trial Under BNSS? 

Section 105 of BNSS provides that the ‘recording of search and seizure through audio-video electronic means’ as well as the list of the seized items must be forwarded to the authorities. It provides: 

• The process of conducting search of a place or taking possession of any property, article or thing under this Chapter or under section 185, including preparation of the list of all things seized in the course of such search and seizure and signing of such list by witnesses, shall be recorded through any audio-video electronic means preferably mobile phone and the police officer shall without delay forward such recording to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class. 
• The proviso to Section 183 of BNSS (which provides for recording of confession) contains the word ‘may’ making it optional for the magistrate to record confessions and statements by audio-video electronic means. 
• Section 176(3) of BNSS introduces a mandate for collection of forensic evidence in all offences punishable by seven years or more and the videography of the process on mobile phone or any other electronic device. 
• There is a provision for audio video recording of the statement of witnesses to police under Section 180 of BNSS but the option remains open on the part of police official. 
• The provision for audio video recording of test identification parade has been made under Section 54 of BNSS. 
• The use of audio-video means to communicate and explain charges to the accused person, is introduced by Section 251(2) of BNSS. 
• Section 254 of BNSS allows for the use of audio-video electronic means in Sessions cases for the deposition of evidence or statements of witnesses, police officers, public servants, or experts.   
• Sections 265 and 266 of BNSS allow the examination of a witness through audio-video electronic means at the designated place to be notified by the State Government. 
• Section 308 of BNSS empowers the examination of the accused through electronic means, specifically utilizing audio-video conferencing (VC) facilities accessible in any place designated by the State Government. the State Government. 
• Section 336 of BNSS allows the use of audio-video means for the deposition of a public servant. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd. has held that Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked after the expiry of prescribed period in this case as the court was working during such period. 

What was the Background of the State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd. Case? 

• In this case the plaintiff and the defendant were in a contract, dispute arose, and defendant revoked the arbitration clause. 
• The arbitral award was passed in favor of the defendant by the Arbitral Tribunal on 30th  June 2022. The copies were received on the same day. 
• Appellate- petitioner filed a petition for setting aside the award to the Calcutta High Court on 31st  October 2022 under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act (A & C Act) as the courts were having Pooja Vacation from 1st  October 2022 to 30th  October 2022.  
• The High Court dismissed the petition as there was a bar under the Limitation Act 1963 (LA) and the petition should be filed on or before 30 September 2022 not afterwards. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• It was observed by the Supreme Court that the limitation period as per Section 34(3) of the A & C Act is three months and the proviso for extension of 30 days is not included under the phrase “prescribed period.” 
  • It implies that the limitation period started from 1st July 2022 as per Section 12 of the LA, 1963. 
  • Therefore, the limitation period expired on 30th October 2022 by allowing the maximum period of 30 days. 
• The court held that there is no applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act as the vacations ended before the prescribed period and the appellant failed to comply with it.  

What are the Legal Provisions Referred to in this Case? 

Section 34 of A&C Act:  

• This Section deals with the application for setting aside arbitral award. It states that- 

(1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3). 

(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if— 

(a) the party making the application establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal that—  

(i) a party was under some incapacity, or  

(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or  

(iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or  

(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration: 

Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or  

(v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or 

(b) the Court finds that—  

(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or  

(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India. 

(2A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court, if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award:  

Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by reappreciation of evidence. 

(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.  

(4) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Court may, where it is appropriate and it is so requested by a party, adjourn the proceedings for a period of time determined by it in order to give the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of arbitral tribunal will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award.  

(5) An application under this section shall be filed by a party only after issuing a prior notice to the other party and such application shall be accompanied by an affidavit by the applicant endorsing compliance with the said requirement.  

(6) An application under this section shall be disposed of expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of one year from the date on which the notice referred to in sub-section (5) is served upon the other party. 

Section 4 of the Limitation Act 

• This Section deals with the expiry of the prescribed period when the court is closed. 
• It states that where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day when the court re-opens.  
• Explanation. —A court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this section if during any part of its normal working hours it remains closed on that day. 

Section 12 of the Limitation Act 

• This Section deals with the exclusion of time in legal proceedings. It states that-
  • In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded. 
  • In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded. 
  • Where a decree or order is appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed, or where an application is made for leave to appeal from a decree or order, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment shall also be excluded. 
  • In computing the period of limitation for an application to set aside an award, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.  
  • Explanation. —In computing under this section, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of a decree or an order, any time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application for a copy thereof is made shall not be excluded. 

What is the Landmark Judgement Referred to in this Case? 

• Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects & Mktg. Ltd (2012): 
  • In this case it was held that the phrase ‘prescribed period’ does not include the extended period of 30 days given under Section 34 of A & C Act, 1996. 

Source:   Supreme Court 

Why in News?

The Supreme Court's recent ruling in the matter of Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr. reaffirms that Muslim women divorced through triple talaq can seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(CrPC) alongside provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019.  

• The decision clarifies that Section 125 applies universally to provide maintenance to all married and divorced Muslim women, emphasizing their right to pursue remedies under both civil and criminal laws. 

What was the Background of Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr. Case? 

• Mohd Abdul Samad (the Appellant) (husband) and Respondent No. 02 (wife) got married on 15th November 2012. 
• Their relationship deteriorated, and the wife left the matrimonial home on 09th April 2016. 
• The wife (Respondent No. 02) filed an FIR (No. 578 of 2017) against the husband under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
•  In response to the criminal complaint, the husband pronounced triple talaq on 25th September 2017. 
• He then approached the office of Quzath for a declaration of divorce. 
• The divorce was granted ex parte, and a divorce certificate was issued on 28th September 2017. 
• The husband claims he attempted to send Rs. 15,000 as maintenance for the iddat period, which the wife allegedly refused. 
• The wife filed a petition for interim maintenance under Section 125(1) of CrPC before the Family Court. 
• On 09th June 2013, the Family Court allowed the wife's petition for interim maintenance. 
• The husband approached the High Court of Telangana to quash the Family Court's order. 
• On 13th December 2023, the High Court modified the Family Court's order, reducing the interim maintenance from Rs. 20,000 per month to Rs. 10,000 per month. 
• The husband has now appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order dated 13th December 2023. 
• Main Contentions of the Appellant (Husband) is Section 125 of CrPC does not apply due to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. 
•  A "divorced Muslim woman" should file an application under Section 5 of the 1986 Act rather than seeking maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC 1973. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all married women including Muslim married women. 
• Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all non-Muslim divorced women. 
• Insofar as divorced Muslim women are concerned, - 
  • Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all such Muslim women, married and divorced under the Special Marriage Act in addition to remedies available under the Special Marriage Act. 
  • If Muslim women are married and divorced under Muslim law then Section 125 of the CrPC as well as the provisions of the 1986 Act are applicable. Option lies with the Muslim divorced women to seek remedy under either of the two laws or both laws. This is because the 1986 Act is not in derogation of Section 125 of the CrPC but in addition to the said provision. 
  • If Section 125 of the CrPC is also resorted to by a divorced Muslim woman, as per the definition under the 1986 Act, then any order passed under the provisions of 1986 Act shall be taken into consideration under Section 127(3)(b) of the CrPC. [This means that if any maintenance has been given to Muslim wife under the personal law, then it shall be taken into account by the Magistrate to alter the maintenance order under Section 127(3)(b)] 
• In case of an illegal divorce as per the provisions of the 2019 Act then, 
  • Relief under Section 5 of the said Act could be availed for seeking subsistence allowance or, at the option of such a Muslim woman, remedy under Section 125 of the CrPC could also be availed. 
  • If during the pendency of a petition filed under Section 125 of the CrPC, a Muslim woman is 'divorced' then she can take recourse under Section 125 of the CrPC or file a petition under the 2019 Act. 
  • The provisions of the 2019 Act provide remedy in addition to and not in derogation of Section 125 of the CrPC. 

What is Section 125 of CrPC? 

• About: 
  • This section deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. 
• BNSS: 
  • Section 144 deals with Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. 
• Purpose:  
  • Provides maintenance to dependents 
  • Prevents vagrancy and destitution 
  • Secular provision applicable to all religions 
• Eligible Claimants:  
  • Wife (including divorced wife who hasn't remarried) 
  • Legitimate or illegitimate minor children 
  • Adult children with physical/mental disabilities 
  • Parents unable to maintain themselves 
• Conditions for Maintenance:  
  • Claimant unable to maintain themselves 
  • Person ordered has sufficient means 
  • Neglect or refusal to maintain the claimant 
• Authority:  
  • First Class Judicial Magistrate 
• Maintenance Amount:  
  • Monthly allowance 
  • Rate determined by Magistrate based on circumstances 
  • No maximum limit specified in law 
• Payment Details:  
  • Payable from the date of order or application 
  • Magistrate can direct payment to specific person 
• Interim Maintenance:  
  • Can be ordered during pendency of proceedings 
  • Includes expenses of the proceeding 
  • Application to be disposed of within 60 days if possible 
• Enforcement:  
  • Warrant for levying unpaid amount 
  • Imprisonment up to one month for non-compliance 
  • Separate punishment for each month's default possible 
• Exceptions:  
  • Wife living in adultery 
  • Wife refusing to live with husband without sufficient reason 
  • Couple living separately by mutual consent 
• Special Provisions:  
  • Father may be ordered to maintain minor daughter until majority if husband lacks means. 
  • Magistrate can order maintenance despite husband's offer to maintain wife at his home. 
  • Husband's second marriage or keeping a mistress is just ground for wife's refusal to live with him. 
• Time Limit:  
  • Application for recovery must be made within one year of due date. 
• Definitions:  
  • "Minor" as per Indian Majority Act, 1875. 
  • "Wife" includes divorced woman who hasn't remarried. 
• Alteration of Allowance:  
  • The amount can be increased or decreased based on change in circumstances. 
• Relationship with Personal Laws:  
  • Operates alongside personal laws. 
  • Can provide additional relief even when personal laws are applicable. 
• Recent Interpretations:  
  • Supreme Court has held it applies to Muslim women, even in cases of illegal divorce like triple talaq. 
• Constitutional validity:  
  • Subsection (2) of Section 125 was upheld as constitutional as per Basant Lal v. State of UP, (1998)  
• Nature of proceeding:  
  • Summary in nature 
  • Quasi-civil and quasi-criminal 
  • Does not finally determine rights and obligations 
• Proof of marriage:  
  • Prima facie proof of marriage is sufficient for maintenance claims. 
• Amendment of maintenance amount:  
  • No provision for amending the amount claimed. 
• Interim maintenance:  
  • Initially not provided in the section 
  • Granted by Supreme Court using inherent powers 
  • Now granted by High Courts 
  • Can be granted based on affidavit 
  • Not subject to revision under section 397(2) CrPC 
• Ex parte orders:  
  • Can be reconsidered on husband's application. 
  • Relationship with other proceedings. 
  • Section 210 CrPC not applicable. 
  • Ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights not an absolute bar to maintenance claim. 
• Scope:  
  • Operates even when marriage or paternity is denied. 
  • Magistrate can decide on relationship issues. 
  • Order remains operative despite temporary resumption of cohabitation. 
• Grounds for separate living:  
  • Insufficiency of reason for wife to live separately must be established by husband in trial court. 
• Delay in proceedings:  
  • May justify granting maintenance from the date of application. 

What is the Relation Between relationship between Section 125 of CrPC and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986? 

• Initial Intention:  
  • The 1986 Act was indeed enacted to limit the application of Section 125 CrPC to Muslim women following the Shah Bano case. 
• Supreme Court Interpretation:  
  • However, subsequent Supreme Court judgments have clarified that Section 125 CrPC continues to apply to Muslim women alongside the 1986 Act. 
• Concurrent Application:  
  • The Supreme Court has held that the 1986 Act does not supersede Section 125 CrPC but provides an additional remedy. 
• Choice of Remedy:  
  • Muslim women have the option to seek maintenance under either Section 125 CrPC or the 1986 Act. 
• Non-derogation Principle:  
  • The 1986 Act is considered to be in addition to, not in derogation of, Section 125 CrPC. 
• Section 5 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 
  • Section 5 deals with option to be governed by the provisions of sections 125 to 128 of CrPC.— 
  • It state that if on the date of the first hearing of the application under sub-section (2) of section 3, a divorced woman and her former husband declare, by affidavit or any other declaration in writing in such form as may be prescribed, either jointly or separately, that they would prefer to be governed by the provisions of sections 125 to 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), and file such affidavit or declaration in the court hearing the application, the Magistrate shall dispose of such application accordingly. 

Important Case law  

• Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005): 
  • The Supreme Court held that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been enacted in the interest of a wife and one who wants to take the benefit under sub-section (1)(a) of Section 125 has to establish that she is the wife of the person concerned. 
• Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985): 
  • The Bench of the Supreme Court declared that a Muslim divorced woman who cannot maintain herself is entitled to maintenance from her former husband till the time she gets remarried.