List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently the Supreme Court in the matter of Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. The State of A.P. has emphasized that for a public servant to be convicted of accepting a bribe, both the demand and acceptance of the bribe must be established by the prosecution. It highlighted that in cases where a trap is set to catch a public servant accepting a bribe, the investigating officer must verify the demand for the bribe by the public servant. 

• The Court warned that failure to prove the demand for bribe could be fatal to the prosecution's case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
• This clarification has garnered attention due to its implications on the burden of proof in bribery cases involving public servants. 

What was the Background of Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. The State of A.P.? 

• The appellant, Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi (AO1), was a Forest Section Officer convicted of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 5,000 from the complainant, Mukka Ramesh (PW-1). 
• On 06th January 2003, AO1 and his team conducted a raid on PW-1's sawmill, detected illegal teakwood, and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 on one M. Ashok, an employee. 
• PW-1 alleged that AO1 later demanded a monthly bribe of Rs. 5,000 to avoid further action against his business. 
• On 22nd January 2003, PW-1 filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).  
• A trap was set for 23nd January 2003, at Hotel Quality-Inn. 
• During the trap, PW-1 claimed to have given the bribe money to AO1 in the hotel's cellar, which was recovered from AO1's rexine bag. 
• AO1 was convicted by the trial court and High Court for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
  • He appealed to the Supreme Court. 
• The defense argued that the case was fabricated, there was no credible evidence of demand, and that PW-1 may have planted the money in AO1's bag. 
• Issues involved:  
  • The credibility of witnesses,  
  • Inconsistencies in testimonies, 
  • Lack of independent verification by the ACB,  
  • The role of M. Ashok in potentially orchestrating the trap. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that a public servant cannot be held guilty of accepting a bribe unless the prosecution establishes both the demand for and subsequent acceptance of the bribe. 
• The Court emphasized the importance of verifying the factum of demand before initiating trap proceedings. This can be done by: 
  • The Trap Laying Officer is making efforts to verify the demand. 
  • Recording telephonic conversations between the decoy and the suspect. 
  • Secretly placing a recording device on the decoy to capture conversations during the bribe acceptance. 
• The Court noted that failure to prove the demand for a bribe can be fatal to the prosecution's case. 
• In this specific case, the Court acquitted the public servant due to: 
  • The Trap Laying Officer's failure to verify the factum of demand before initiating proceedings. 
  • The prosecution's inability to prove the accusation is beyond reasonable doubt. 
• The Court criticized the use of an interested witness (a relative of the decoy) as a shadow witness to oversee and overhear the transaction, without any effort by the investigating officer to disassociate from this potentially biased witness. 
• The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, gave the benefit of doubt to the public servant due to these shortcomings in the prosecution's case. 

What is The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 

• The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an act of the Parliament of India enacted to combat corruption in government agencies and public sector businesses in India.  
• The Act aims to prevent corruption in government agencies and public sector businesses in India, consolidating laws related to the prevention of corruption and matters connected therewith. 
• It covers all public servants, including government employees, judges, and those working in government-owned corporations or state-funded organizations. 
• The Act defines various forms of corruption, including bribery, criminal misconduct, and possession of disproportionate assets. It prescribes punishments for these offenses, which can include fines and imprisonment. 
• The Act includes provisions for speedy trials, expanded definitions of criminal misconduct, and the concept of 'presumption of guilt' in certain cases, shifting the burden of proof to the accused. 
• The Act was significantly amended in 2018 to include corporate bribery, provide for time-bound trials, and protect coerced bribe-givers who report the offense within seven days.  

Who are Public Servants According to Act of 1988 

• Section2(c) deals with Public Servant means. 
  • (i) any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty; 
  • (ii) any person in the service or pay of a local authority; 
  • (iii) any person in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); 
  • (iv) any Judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions; 
  • (v) any person authorized by a court of justice to perform any duty, in connection with the administration of justice, including a liquidator, receiver or commissioner appointed by such court; 
  • (vi) any arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by a court of justice or by a competent public authority; 
  • (vii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election; 
  • (viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform any public duty; 
  • (ix) any person who is the president, secretary or other office-bearer of a registered co-operative society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having received any financial aid from the Central Government or a State Government or from any corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or any authority or body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); 
  • (x) any person who is a chairman, member or employee of any Service Commission or Board, by whatever name called, or a member of any selection committee appointed by such Commission or Board for the conduct of any examination or making any selection on behalf of such Commission or Board; 
  • (xi) any person who is a Vice-Chancellor or member of any governing body, professor, reader, lecturer or any other teacher or employee, by whatever designation called, of any University and any person whose services have been availed of by a university or any other public authority in connection with holding or conducting examinations. 

What are Legal Provisions Related to Bribery? 

• Section 7: Offence relating to public servant being bribed 
• Section 8: Offence relating to bribing of a public servant. 
  • (1) Any person who gives or promises to give an undue advantage to another person or persons, with intention—  
    • (i) to induce a public servant to perform improperly a public duty; or 
    • (ii) to reward such public servant for the improper performance of public duty, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both:  
    • Proviso provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply where a person is compelled to give such undue advantage:  
    • Proviso provided further that the person so compelled shall report the matter to the law enforcement authority or investigating agency within a period of seven days from the date of giving such undue advantage:  
    • Proviso provided also that when the offence under this section has been committed by a commercial organisation, such commercial organization shall be punishable with fine. 
• Section 9: Offence relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organization 
• Section 10: Person in charge of commercial organisation to be guilty of offence. 
• Section 11: Public servant obtaining valuable things without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant. 
• Section 12: Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or 11 which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.  
• Section 13: Criminal misconduct by a public servant, including: 
  • Habitually accepting gratification 
  • Habitually accepting valuable thing without adequate consideration 
  • Misappropriation of property 
  • Obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing position 
  • Possessing disproportionate assets 
• Section 14: Punishment for habitual offenders under Sections 8, 9, and 12. 
• Section 15: Punishment for attempt to commit offences defined in Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d). 
• Section 20: Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage. 

What is Landmark Case under PC Act? 

• In Neeraj Dutta v. State (2022) it was held that mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification, without establishing the offer made by the bribe giver or demand raised by the public servant, would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d)(i) or Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
  • The court has clarified that the prosecution ought to prove the offer made by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant as a fact in issue to establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Ltd. has held that whether a film is depicting “Disability Humour”, or “Disabling Humour” depends upon the overall message of the film. 

What was the Background of the Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Ltd. Case? 

• In this case, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was moved to the Delhi High Court claiming that the film “Aank Micholi” produced by SONY Pictures is derogatory for people with disability. 
• The PIL was rejected by the High Court stating that courts generally don’t interfere when the film is already censored by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). 
• It was also stated by the court that too much interference with films would restrain creative freedom. 
• In furtherance to the decision of the High Court the appellant, an activist with locomotor disability moved a PIL to the Supreme Court claiming that the film is derogatory for people with disability. 
• He claimed the producers and directors of the film to make a short film in a way to create awareness about the people with disability. 
• He also claimed that the producers should put emphasis on giving equal opportunity to people with disabilities. 
• It was also contended that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) should have a member with disability so to properly understand the sensitivity of the issue under Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act 1952.   

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• It was observed by the Supreme Court that the message and intent of the film holds a great importance while determining whether the act is ‘Disabling humour’ or ‘Disability humour.’ 
• The court held that the modern social model should be used to determine the film's intent, not the old medical model. 
  • It was held by the court that films may use disparaging or negative language for people with disabilities if the intent of the film is to give a positive message. 
  • If the use of disparaging or negative language for people with disabilities creates more negativity or derogates them and has a negative impact, then it should be taken care of.   
• Further it was held by the court that inclusion of a physically disabled person is not required in the CBFC as it has already been working to oversee adequate guidelines on the permissibility of such content on people with disabilities is in place. 
• The Supreme Court held that the court cannot order producers and directors to make a short film as it would be “compelled speech.” 
• The court also listed the guidelines to be followed by CBFC as: 
  • Words Cultivate Institutional Discrimination- terms such as cripple and spastic have come to acquire devalued meaning in society's perception of people with disabilities. 
  • There should be avoidance of language that 'individualizes impairment and overlooks the disabling social barriers' like 'suffering' or 'victim'. 
  • The Creators should adequately research and check for the accurate representation of a medical condition. Lack of such accuracy may lead to misinformation about disability and entrench stereotypes about persons with such impairment, aggravating the disability. 
  • Visual media should strive to depict the diverse realities of Persons with Disability, showcasing not only their challenges but also their successes and contributions to society. 
  • They should not be lampooned based on myths such as a blind person bumping into objections nor be presented in super cripples on the other extreme. 
  • Decision-making bodies should bear in mind the values of participation, the 'Nothing about Us, without Us' principle is based on the promotion of participation of people with disabilities and equalization of opportunities. 
  • It must be put into practice in constituting statutory committees and inviting expert opinions for assessing the overall message of films and their impact on the dignity of individuals under the Cinematograph Act and Rules. 
  • The Convention of Protection of Rights of people with disabilities also requires consultation with and involvement of people with disabilities for implementation of measures to encourage a portal that is consistent with it- collaboration with disability advocacy groups can ensure a sensitive portrayal and provide valuable insights. 
• Hence, the Court held that the disability humour can be used in the films to curb out the stereotypical humour about the people with disabilities. 

What are the Various Landmark Judgements Cited in this Case? 

• Raj Kapoor v. State (1980): In this case the Supreme Court noted that the certificate, for judging the fitness of a film for public exhibition, also includes consideration of the ingredients of other laws such as the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh (1996): In this case the Supreme Court held that the motive behind the film was to create awareness about such evil and not to promote it. Mere depiction of something cannot be impermissible. 
• Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission (2021): The Supreme Court underlined the positive obligation of both State and private parties to provide support to persons with disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation in society. 

What are the Provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 Referred to in this Case? 

• Section 5 deals with Advisory Panel. It states that- 
  For the purpose of enabling the Board to efficiently discharge its functions under this Act, the Central Government may establish at such regional centres as it thinks fit, advisory panels each of which shall consist of such number  persons, being persons qualified in the opinion of the Central Government to judge the effect of films on the public, as the Central Government may think fit to appoint thereto. 
  • At each regional Centre there shall be as many regional officers as the Central Government may think fit to appoint, and rules made in this behalf may provide for the association of regional officers in the examination of films. 
  • The Board may consult in such a manner as may be prescribed any advisory panel in respect of any film for which an application for a certificate has been made. 
  • It shall be the duty of every such advisory panel whether acting as a body or in committees as may be provided in the rules made in this behalf to examine the film and to make such recommendations to the Board as it thinks fit. 
  • The members of the advisory panel shall not be entitled to any salary but shall receive such fees or allowances as may be prescribed. 

What are the Provisions of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 Referred to in this Case? 

Section 3 of this Act: 

• Section 3 deals with equality and nondiscrimination. It states that the  
  • The appropriate Government shall ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her integrity equally with others.  
  • The appropriate Government shall take steps to utilize the capacity of persons with disabilities by providing an appropriate environment.  
  • No person with disability shall be discriminated against on the grounds of disability, unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.  
  • No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty only on the grounds of disability.  
  • The appropriate Government shall take necessary steps to ensure reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. 

Overview of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: 

• This Act is governed on the modern social model and the Act embodies principles of dignity, individual autonomy (freedom to make personal choices), non-discrimination, and effective participation. The CRPD asserts that disability arises from the interaction between impairments and social attitudes, creating barriers to full and equal participation in society. 
• This Act represents shift from viewing disability through a charity lens to a human rights perspective. Its core aim is to empower people with disabilities by upholding their inherent dignity and autonomy. 
• The act ensures equality of opportunity, accessibility, gender equality, and the recognition of the evolving capacities of children with disabilities, ensuring their right to maintain their identities. 

What is the Difference Between Disability Humour & Disabling Humour? 

What is Compelled Speech? 

About: 

• Compelled speech is prohibited as per the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) as it is violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under the constitution.  
• Compelled speech specifically is covered under Article 19(1) (a) of the COI, where no one can be compelled to say and speak anything without his will. 

Case Law: 

• In the case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), popularly known as the ‘National Anthem’ case the Supreme Court held that not singing the National Anthem while it is recited is not an offence under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, if the accused is not disrespecting it and no one can be compelled to sing and speak any words which is involuntary.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of West Bengal v. Union of India has held that the Supreme Court shall have the original jurisdiction to deal with the present case and suit filed by the state is maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution. 

What was the Background of State of West Bengal v. Union of India Case? 

• In this case, the state (Plaintiff) filed a suit against the Union of India (defendant). 
• The plaintiff argued that even after revocation of its consent the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) continued registering First Information Report (FIR) under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946 (Act).  
• The plaintiff stated this act of the defendant as constitutional overreach. 
• The defendant contended on the maintainability of suit. 
• It argued that CBI cannot be termed as equated as Government of India. 
• It was also argued that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) is also pending in this matter so the same matter cannot be maintained under Article 131. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Single bench of Justice B.R. Gawai observed that the argument that CBI cannot be equated as Government of India holds no water 
  • The Supreme Court referred to Section 3 and Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act which expressly states CBI functions under the supervision of the Government.  
• It was further held that even if the suit is pending under Article 136, Article 32 or Article 226, the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to take the applications under Article 131 of the constitution based on the reading of the Article 131 as “Subject to the provisions of this constitution”. 
  • The Supreme Court shall have the original jurisdiction as per the stated provision. 
  • The Supreme Court has the special jurisdiction to deal with cases where the subject matter in dispute depends upon the extent of legal rights. 

What is Article 131 of the Constitution of India? 

• It states the provisions relating to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as: 
  • Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute-- 
    • Between the Government of India and one or more Slates or 
    • Between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other or 
    • Between two or more States, if the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. 
  • Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, named or other similar instrument which, having been entered into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution, continues in operation after such commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute. 

Case Laws 

• The South India Corporation (P) Limited v. The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum and Another (1963):  
  • The case was based on Article 372 (Continuance in force of existing laws and their adaptation).  
  • The Court opined that these words should be given a reasonable interpretation that reflects the intention of the Constitution's makers. 
• Union of India and Another v. Tulsiram Patel (1985):  
  • This was based on  Article 309 of the Indian Constitution (Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State) which states any competent person can be directed to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service such rules must be made "subject to the provisions of this Constitution” if they are to be valid. 
• State of Rajasthan and Others v. Union of India and Others (1977):  
  • The supreme Court held that Article 131 provides a forum for resolving disputes based on the existence or extent of a legal right.