List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Abdul Khader v. State of Kerala has held that the petition filed on or after 1st July 2024 shall be proceeded as per the provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS). 

What was the Background of the Abdul Khader v State of Kerala Case? 

• In this case, the appellant was convicted by the trial court. 
• The proceedings in trial court were held as per the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 
• The appellant aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court filed an appeal invoking the provisions of Section 374(2) of CrPC on 10th July 2024. 
• The question was whether appeal to be filed under CrPC or BNSS. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Kerala High Court observed the reading of Section 531 (1) and 531 (2)(a) of BNSS. 
• It was inferred from these provisions that the appellate has the right to appeal but does not have the vested right in respect of the procedural law that is to be followed for filing an appeal unless it is expressly provided in a statute. 
• In this case the appellant had the right to appeal. 
• It was held by the court that for ongoing proceedings on 1st July 2024 the provisions under CrPC are applicable while if the proceedings have been concluded before 1st July 2024 then provisions of BNSS shall be applicable. 

What is Section 531 (1) and (2)(a) of BNSS? 

• Repeal  
  • Clause (1) of Section 531 repeals the CrPC. 
• Savings Clause  
  • Clause (2) introduces a savings provision, preserving certain aspects of the repealed CrPC. 
• Pending Matters  
  • Clause (2)(a) specifically addresses pending legal proceedings, including:  
    • Appeals 
    • Applications 
    • Trials 
    • Inquiries 
    • Investigations 
• Continuation of Pending Matters  
  • Any proceeding pending immediately before the BNSS comes into force will continue under the old law. 
  • These matters will be disposed of, continued, held, or made in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC. 
• Application of Old Law  
  • The CrPC, as it existed immediately before the commencement of BNSS, will apply to these pending matters. 
  • This application occurs as if the BNSS had not come into force. 

What is Provision Related to Appeals from Conviction Under BNSS? 

• It is given under Section 415 of BNSS while under Section 374 of CrPC which reads as: 
  • Appeals to Supreme Court  
    • Applicable to: Persons convicted by High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction 
  • Appeals to High Court  
    • Applicable to persons convicted by Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge 
    • Applicable to persons convicted in any court where sentence of imprisonment exceeds seven years 
  • Appeals to Court of Session  
    • Persons convicted by Magistrate of first class or second class can prefer appeal. 
    • Persons sentenced under section 364 can prefer appeal. 
    •  
    • Persons against whom an order or sentence has been passed under section 401 by any Magistrate can prefer appeal. 
  • Exceptions  
    • Sub-section (3) begins with "Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)". 
    • This indicates that the provisions for appeal to the Court of Session do not apply if the case falls under sub-section (2). 
  • Hierarchical Appeal Structure  
    • The section establishes a clear hierarchy for appeals based on the convicting court and the severity of the sentence. 
  • Right to Appeal  
    • This section ensures that convicted persons have the right to appeal their convictions to a higher court, depending on the circumstances of their case 
  • Note 
    • Under the new provision “a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge" are excluded. 

Case Laws 

• XXX v. State of UT Chandigarh and Another (2024): The guidelines have been issued by the Punjab & Haryana High Court as: 
  • An appeal filed on or after 1st July 2024 shall be governed by BNSS. 
  • Irrespective of whether the conviction was given on or before 1st July 2024 or if the appeal is filed on or after 1st July 2024, BNSS is to be followed. 
  • All applications filed and steps taken in appeals prior to 1st July 2024 shall be governed by CrPC. 
  • When an appeal/ application is re-presented after curing defects, its date of filing shall be the date of its first presentation. 
  • any appeal/ revision/ application/ revision filed on or after 1st July 2024 under CrPC will be non-maintainable and would be dismissed/ rejected. 
• Anoop K. A. @ Anoop @ Anu v. Union of India (2021): The court in this case held that procedural amendments are applied retrospectively unless until expressly provided otherwise.

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai held that an employee who has been fully exonerated from the charges and reinstated is entitled to full pay for the period he was out of service.      

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of Dinesh Prasad v. State of U.P. 

What is the Background of Dinesh Prasad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Case? 

• The petitioner is a follower with the Uttar Pradesh Police. 
• Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991. 
• A chargesheet was issued against him alleging that there was unauthorized leave of 2 days. 
• In inquiry, petitioner was held guilty of all charges levelled against him and subsequently dismissed from service. 
• Petitioner filed an appeal against the termination order. The Appellate Authority exonerated the petitioner of charges levelled against and he was consequently reinstated in service. 
• A show cause notice was issued to him under Rule 73 of the Financial Handbook Volume II Part II to Part IV as to why his services for the period when he was out of service be not regularised without payment of salary on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. 
• The above was challenged before the High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court held that an employee who has been fully exonerated of the charges against him and has been subsequently reinstated is entitled to full pay for the period he was out of service by virtue of Rule 54 of the Financial Hand Book Volume-II. 
• It was held that the only situation in which a pay to such employee can be denied is if he was in an employment for the period he was out of service, and was earning more or equivalent to the amount he is entitled to. 
• The Court observed that by virtue of Rule 54 (2) and 54 (3) of the Financial HandBook Volume II the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period specified.  
• It is apparent that, on his reinstatement after the order of dismissal or removal is set aside, a government servant can not be denied his entire pay and allowances for the period he was out of service. 

What is the Principle of No Work, No Pay Service Rule? 

• The principle of No Work No Pay depicts that if the employee has not worked, he will not be paid. 
• This principle finds its genesis in several Indian legislations like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA) and the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (PWA).  
• In the case of Rajendra Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh (2021), the Chhattisgarh High Court held that this principle is based on “fundamental concept in law of contract of employment.” 
• The principle of ‘no work no pay’ has played a pivotal role in discouraging unauthorised absenteeism, disobedience, and non-performance of work by employees, and in minimising disruption to business operations. 
• It has evolved through judicial precedents and finds place in the service rules.  

What are the Important Case Laws on No Work No Pay Priniciple? 

• J.N. Shrivastava v. Union of India (2012) 
  • The principle of “no work no pay” is not applicable when the employee is ready and willing to work, but the employer prevents him from doing his duties (i.e. work). 
  • The said principle cannot be applied to a case in which an employee is kept away from duty or rendered ineligible by act or omission of the employer. 
• State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sita Devi (2020) 
  • The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that denial of maternity benefits to any woman, regardless of the status of her employment, would amount to a violation of the constitutional principles. 
  • Thus, Court held that maternity benefit is a part of fundamental right.  
• Chief Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited v. Siraj Uddin Khan (2019) 
  • The Supreme Court in this case reiterated the the settled principle that nobody could be directed to claim wages for the period that he remained absent without leave or without justification.  
• Rashtriya Shramik Aghadi v. The State of Maharashtra (2020) 
  • The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court observed that during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, the principle of “no work- no wages” cannot be made applicable by the employers. 
• Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (2016) 
  • The principle of ‘no work no pay’ could apply mostly in instances where employees have voluntarily and unauthorisedly absented themselves from work. 
  • Absence on account of statutory leaves or employer-sanctioned paid leaves are also a general exception to this principle. 

Source:  Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently in case of Umang Mahendra Shah v. Union of India & Ors.  Bombay High Court highlights a significant legal issue where an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, lacking proper sanction under Section 151(2), renders both the order and subsequent notice under Section 148 illegal. This Judgment underscores the critical adherence to procedural requirements in tax reassessment cases, affecting assessments for the year 2016-17. 

What was the Background of Umang Mahendra Shah v. Union of India & Ors.? 

• The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2016-17. 
• This notice was based on a prior notice under Section 148A(b) and an order under Section 148A(d), which were also challenged. 
• The approval for the Section 148A(d) order was granted by the Principal CIT under Section 151(i). 
• However, since more than 3 years had elapsed since the end of the relevant assessment year, approval should have been obtained under Section 151(ii) from higher authorities. 
• The petitioner argued this made the approval and subsequent notices illegal, citing a previous Bombay High Court ruling in the Siemens Financial Services case. 
• The court agreed that for cases where more than 3 years have passed, approval must be under Section 151(ii), not 151(i). 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court noted that sanction for passing an order under Section 148A(d) was required to be obtained under clause (ii) of Section 151. 
  • This requirement applies when more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. 
• In this case, the relevant assessment year was 2016-17, so more than three years had indeed passed. 
• However, the sanction was incorrectly obtained under clause (i) of Section 151 instead of clause (ii). 
• The court referred to a previous Division Bench decision in Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. 
  • Based on the Siemens case, the court held that if an order under Section 148A(d) is passed without appropriate sanction under Section 151, it must be declared illegal. 
• The court concluded that both the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and the consequent notice under Section 148 were illegal. 
• The court decided to allow the petition on this limited ground, without delving into other issues raised. 

What is Section 148 of the Income Tax Act? 

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act deals with the issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. The key points of this section are: 

• Notice Requirement:  
  • Before making an assessment, reassessment, or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer must serve a notice to the assessee. 
  • The notice requires the assessee to furnish a return of income for the relevant assessment year within a specified period. 
• Return Specifications:  
  • The return must be in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner. 
  • It should include other particulars as prescribed by the Act. 
• Application of Act:  
  • The provisions of the Income Tax Act apply to this return as if it were a return required under section 139. 
  • Validity of Notices:  
  • Certain notices served under specific conditions are deemed valid, even if they were served after the expiry of the usual 12-month period. 
  • This applies to returns furnished between October 1, 1991, and September 30, 2005, in response to notices under this section. 
• Time Limits:  
  • The validity of notices is subject to time limits specified in sub-section (2) of section 153 for making assessments, reassessments, or recomputations. 
• Section 148A:  
  • Introduced in the Budget of 2021, this section brings significant changes to taxation in India. 
  • It empowers Income Tax officers to initiate reassessment proceedings when they suspect concealed income. 
  • Section 148A(d) is specifically limited to the existence of information suggesting that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 

What is Section 151 of the Income Tax Act? 

• Section 151 of the Income Tax Act: Sanction for Issue of Notice 
• Time Limit for Notice Issuance  
  • No notice under section 148 can be issued after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 
  • Exception: When higher authorities are satisfied with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. 
• Authority Requirements  
  • For cases beyond the four-year limit:  
    • Sanction required from Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, or Commissioner. 
  • For other cases:  
    • Assessing Officers below Joint Commissioner rank need approval from Joint Commissioner. 
• Satisfaction of Higher Authorities  
  • The higher authorities mentioned must be satisfied with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. 
  • They must deem it a fit case for issuing a notice under section 148. 
• Delegation of Notice Issuance  
  • Higher authorities, once satisfied with the Assessing Officer's reasons, need not issue the notice themselves. 
  • The Assessing Officer can issue the notice after obtaining the required sanction. 
• Purpose of the Section  
  • This section acts as a check on the powers of Assessing Officers. 
  • It ensures that notices for reassessment are issued only in deserving cases, especially for older assessment years.