List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Shyam C. Chandak and Justice A.S. Gadkari held that mere presence of the Petitioners at the relevant place and time, as ‘customers’, when the two women were dancing allegedly in obscene manner, is not sufficient to attract the said offence.       

• The Bombay High Court held this in the case of Nirav Raval v. State of Maharashtra. 

What is the Background of Nirav Raval v. The State of Maharashtra Case? 

• The informant was on surveillance duty to inform about the objectionable activities taking place in bar and restaurants.  
• The informant informed that two women were dancing in an obscene manner. 
• The police officer reached there and confirmed the situation wherein they saw two women were dancing in an obscene manner and customers gave Indian Currency notes to waiter and told him to blow the said notes on the dancing women and thus, they were aiding and abetting them to do the dance. 
• The petitioners were thus accused of offences under Section 294, Section 114 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3, 8(1)(2)(3)(4) of Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court held that in the present facts the waiter could not be examined by the Investigating Officer as he had already left. 
• There is no material to show that, when the customers gave the Indian Currency notes to the waiter, the Petitioners were amongst said customers and they only gave currency notes to the waiter with a specific instruction to blow it on the dancing women. 
• Also, no other specific overt act could be attributed to the petitioners in order to attract offences alleged here. 
• Therefore, mere presence of the Petitioners at the relevant place and time, as ‘customers’, when the two women were dancing allegedly in obscene manner, is not sufficient to attract the said offence. 

What is Obscenity under Indian Penal Code, 1860? 

• Section 294 provides for obscene acts and songs. 
• It provides whoever to the annoyance of others 
  • does any obscene act in any public place, or 
  • sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, 
  • Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both. 
• This Section is contained in Section 294 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 

How was Obscenity Interpreted by Courts in India? 

• Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965) 
  • This case related to the prosecution of the persons were found selling an allegedly obscene book, Lady Chatterley’s Lover by DH Lawrence. 
  • The Supreme Court for the time interpreted the word obscene and relied on the test in the famous R v. Hicklin (1868) case. 
  • The Hicklin test tends to examine if the impugned matter tends to “deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.”  
  • Under the Hicklin test a work should be viewed as a whole, but the obscene matter should also be separately considered to see if it violates the test. 
    •  Where art and obscenity coexist, “art must so preponderate as to throw the obscenity into a shadow or the obscenity so trivial and insignificant that it can have no effect and may be overlooked.” 
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that the text of Lady Chatterley’s lover was obscene under the Hicklin test. 
• Director General, Directorate General v. Anand Patwardhan (2006) 
  • The Court in this case was dealt with the issue if the documentary “Father, son and Holy war’ should be benned on the ground of being obscene. 
  • The Court held that the judge should place himself in the position of a reader of every age group in whose hands the book is likely to fall and should try to appreciate what kind of possible influence the book is likely to have in the minds of the readers.  
    • The judge should thereafter apply his judicial mind dispassionately to decide whether the book in question can be said to be obscene by an objective assessment of the book as a whole and also of the passages complained of as obscene separately.   
• Aveek Sarkar & Anr v. State of West Bengal And Anr (2014) 
  • The Court in this case held that the test to be applied is “community standard test” instead of the “Hicklin test”. 
  • The Court held that a picture of a nude/semi-nude woman, as such, cannot per se be called obscene unless it has the tendency to arouse feeling or revealing an overt sexual desire. 
  • The Court held that the obscenity has to be judged from the point of view of an average person applying the contemporary community standards. 
  • It was held that only those sex-related materials which have a tendency of “exciting lustful thoughts” can be held to be obscene. 

How is Obscenity Interpreted in Other Countries? 

• United Kingdom 
  • The test followed in U.K. is the Hicklin test which has been discussed earlier. 
• United States 
  • In USA the test was laid down in the case of Roth v. United States (1957) where the Court provided the basic guidelines as follows: 
    • whether " the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest 
    • whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and 
    • whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic political, or scientific value. 

What are the Statutory Provisions related to Obscenity in India? 

• The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 
  • This law was enacted to outlaw the indecent, improper and scandalous depiction of women through any kind of publication. 
  • Under Section 2(c) of the Act, it not only elucidates what all comprises of the term indecent representation of women; it also prohibits and punishes publication of any kind whereby women are portrayed in an indecent way or they are indecently represented. This is done not only in books, circulars, posters etc but also in any kind of advertisements 
• Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 
  • This Act tends to control the telecast of those programs which can cause an outrage in our society by offending the already set standards and outlines a punishment with imprisonment and fine. 
  • Rule 6(1)(o) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, which is read with Section 5 of this Act, restricts the carrying out of programs that seem 9 unfit for “unrestricted public exhibition”, which is specified under Section 5-A. 
• Cinematograph Act, 1952 
  • This Act specifies provisions for regulation and certification for showcase of cinematograph films.  
  • s. Section 4 of the Act read with Section 5-A of Cable Television Networks Act details the provisions for examination and certification of  cinematograph films by the Board of Film Certification (CFBC).  
• The Young Persons (Harmful Publication) Act, 1956 
  • This Act restricts the publication of such matter which might corrupt or adulterate a child or a young person’ mind or incite them into committing crimes of violence, cruelty, etc. 
  • A punishment with imprisonment and fine is prescribed to anyone who does anything that is in contravention to the provisions of the said Act. 
• The Information Technology Act, 2000 
  • This Act prohibits both publication and transmission of those materials which are of lascivious nature or have an appeal of lewd interests if they are in electronic forms. 
  • Any publication or transmission that has an effect which leads to degradation or corruption of those who have read, seen or heard the said matter that is embodied or contained in it, is an offence punishable with imprisonment and fine. 

What are the Case Laws on Obscenity under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code, 1860?  

• Lalit S/o Nandlal Bais v. State of Maharashtra (2023) 
  • The Bombay Court held that for an offence to be made out under Section 294 of IPC: 
    • An act must have been done in public place 
    • The said act must be obscene 
    • The same must cause annoyance to others 
  • The Bombay High Court held that the women dancing provocatively in skimpy clothes or making gestures that the police officials consider obscene cannot be termed per se obscene acts which could cause annoyance to any member of the public. 
• Manish Parshottam Rughwani And Ors v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 
  • The Coordinate bench of Bombay High Court held that the petitioners were only present in the bar at the relevant time. 
  • There was no specific overt act attributed to them and hence the petitioners were held to be not liable for the offence. 
• Rushabh M. Mehta and Anr v. State of Maharashtra (2020) 
  • The Bombay High Court held that for attracting offence under Section 294 of IPC, a person against whom the offence is alleged is said to have indulged in any obscene act at a public place.   
• N.S. Madhangopal and Another v. K. Lalitha (2022) 
  • The Supreme Court held that mere abusive, humiliating or defamatory words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) of IPC but there must be further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case.

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Saheer E.P. v National Investigating Agency has held that it is mandatory for all the courts to furnish the grounds of arrest to the arrested person to make the arrest valid. 

What was the Background of the Saheer E.P. v National Investigating Agency Case?  

• In this case the petitioner was the 4th accused of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case. 
• The petitioner ’s bail was dismissed by the Special court for harbouring the 2nd accused. 
• The 2nd accused was the active member of the Popular Front of India (PFI), he was also associated with the Indian Fraternity Forum (IFF). 
• 1st accused along with 2nd accused set up ISIS module in Kerala and recruited youths. 
• All these accuses along with 4th accused were engaged into various criminal activities to raise funds for their terrorist activities. 
• They were planning various terrorist activities to harm the integrity and national security of India. 
• The petitioner pleaded that he had no knowledge that 2nd accused is a terrorist and he added that he was just training the 2nd accused for stock trading.  
• The petitioner filed an appeal before the Kerala High Court because he was not furnished with the grounds of his arrest and therefore shall be granted bail by referring the precedent Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024). 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Kerala High Court observed that it cannot be proved that 4th accused was harbouring 2nd accused just because his name appeared in the newspaper. 
• It was also added by the court that as per the reading of Section 19 of UAPA, it is clearly given that harbouring can only be done if the accused has the knowledge that he is harbouring a terrorist. 
• It was inferred from these provisions that it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge about 2nd accused as he has acquaintances with him and the same has not been disproved in the Trial Court. 
• The High Court also observed Section 43D (5) of UAPA if a bail application is opposed and if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true, the Special Court shall not grant bail. 
• However, this is not the case in constitutional courts while in the present case the accused was convicted recently and therefore there is no such infringement of his fundamental rights to approach the Constitutional Court. 
• The court therefore dismissed the petition that he was not informed with the grounds of his arrest as per the precedent Prabir Purkayastha v State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) while he was informed orally about the grounds of his arrest therefore the arrest was valid. 

What was Judgment in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)? 

Brief Facts 

• In this case, the officers of the PS Special Cell, New Delhi carried out extensive raids at the residential and official premises of the appellant and the company, namely, M/s. PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd.( company) of which the appellant is the Director in connection with FIR registered for the offences punishable under the sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The appellant was arrested in connection with the said FIR on 3rd October 2023 and the arrest memo was in a computerised format and does not contain any column regarding the grounds of arrest of the appellant. 
  • This very issue is primarily the bone of contention between the parties to the appeal. 
• The appellant was presented in the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge and the appellant was remanded to seven days police custody vide order dated 4th October 2023. 
• The appellant promptly questioned his arrest and the police custody remand granted by preferring criminal appeal in the High Court of Delhi which stands rejected by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. 

Court's Analysis and Findings 

• The court found no significant difference in the language used in Section 19(1) of PMLA and Section 43B (1) of UAPA regarding informing the arrested person of the grounds for arrest. 
• The court stated that interpreting the phrase "inform him of the grounds for such arrest" made in the Pankaj Bansal case (which dealt with PMLA) should be applied to cases under UAPA too. 
• The court noted that the provisions regarding communication of grounds of arrest in both UAPA and PMLA find their source in the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 
• The court held that the interpretation laid down in the Pankaj Bansal case regarding informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest in writing should be applied equally to persons arrested under UAPA. 
• The court rejected the argument that there are variations in the overall provisions of PMLA and UAPA that would impact the statutory mandate to inform grounds of arrest. 
• The court emphasized that both statutes have a common modified application of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
• The court concluded that the interpretation of the statutory mandate laid down in the Pankaj Bansal case on informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest in writing should be applied "pari passu" (on equal footing) to persons arrested under UAPA. 
• The court said that this principle shall be applicable progressively and not retrospectively.  

Conclusion and Order 

• The arrest and remand order are declared invalid and set aside. 
• The appellant was directed to be released on furnishing bail bonds to the trial court's satisfaction. 
• The appeal was allowed. 

Case Law 

• Pankaj Bansal v Union of India (2023): In this case it was held that the communication od grounds for arrest is mandatory even though it is not expressly given under the provisions under the Prevention of Money laundering Act (PMLA). 

Source: Mint 

Why in News? 

SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) has released a consultation paper proposing summary proceedings for minor violations by market intermediaries. The proposed changes aim to streamline the resolution process, potentially concluding cases within 50 days instead of the current lengthy timelines. This amendment aligns with global regulatory practices and is intended to make enforcement more efficient while protecting investor interests and enhance regulatory efficiency. 

What is the Concept of Summary Proceedings under SEBI? 

• Summary proceedings are a proposed legal framework to handle certain violations by market intermediaries more swiftly and efficiently. 
• They are intended for obvious violations or those that need minimal evidence to prove. 
• Cases eligible for summary proceedings include:  
  • Expulsion of members by stock exchanges or clearing corporations 
  • Termination of depository agreements 
  • Non-payment of registration fees 
  • Failure to submit periodic reports 
  • Making false or misleading claims about returns or performance 
• The process involves:  
  • Issuing a notice to the intermediary 
  • Allowing 21 days for written response 
  • No personal hearings 
  • Aiming to pass an order within 21 days of receiving the response 
• Possible outcomes include cancellation or suspension of registration, or other appropriate orders. 
• The purpose is to regulatory processes, ensure uniform treatment of similar violations, and enhance SEBI's ability to protect investors and maintain market integrity. 

What is the Objective of Summary Proceedings in SEBI? 

• The primary goal is to create a faster, more efficient mechanism for dealing with certain clear-cut violations by market intermediaries, thereby improving SEBI's regulatory effectiveness and market protection capabilities. 
  • To handle certain violations of securities laws by intermediaries more quickly and efficiently. 
  • To enhance SEBI's ability to act swiftly in protecting investor interests. 
  • To maintain the integrity, transparency, and efficiency of the securities market. 
  • To streamline the regulatory process for specific types of violations. 
  • To propose legal changes in the SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008 to include provisions for summary proceedings. 
  • To seek public comments on these proposed changes, ensuring transparency in the regulatory process. 
  • To address obvious or easily proven violations without the need for lengthy procedures. 
  • To align SEBI's practices with global standards for efficient market oversight. 

What was the Background for Summary proceedings in SEBI? 

• Summary proceedings were part of SEBI regulations until 2008, when they were repealed with the introduction of the Intermediaries Regulations. 
• SEBI has observed an increase in obvious violations that require minimal evidence or are admitted by intermediaries. 
• Common violations include:  
  • Non-payment of fees to maintain registration 
  • Failure to submit periodic reports within specified timelines 
  • Investment advisors not registering with the IAASB as required by 2020 regulations 
• The current procedure for cancelling registrations, even for clear violations, is lengthy and resource-intensive, as outlined in Chapter V of the Intermediaries Regulations. 
• For mass non-compliance cases, like the hundreds of investment advisors who didn't register with IAASB (International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board), separate proceedings are required for each entity, involving multiple authorities. 
• SEBI is now proposing to reintroduce summary proceedings to handle these clear-cut violations more efficiently, aiming to streamline the regulatory process and better allocate resources. 

What was the Need for Summary Procedure in SEBI? 

• Current procedures under Chapter V of Intermediaries Regulations are time-consuming, inefficient, and cumbersome for obvious violations. 
• Section 30A deals with Summary proceedings of cases and procedure. 
• Summary proceedings are proposed for violations that are obvious, admitted, or require minimal evidence. 
• Swift action is crucial for maintaining market integrity, transparency, and efficiency. 
• Summary proceedings aim to handle violations more expeditiously and efficiently than current processes. 
• They ensure uniform treatment of similar violations and reduce the lengthy enforcement process. 
• This approach was previously part of SEBI regulations until 2008 and is now being reintroduced. 
• Summary proceedings offer entities an opportunity to submit reasons why proceedings should not be concluded against them. 
• The goal is to streamline the regulatory process, enhancing SEBI's ability to act swiftly in protecting investors and maintaining market integrity. 
• This method is designed for swift resolution without the need for a full trial, addressing obvious or admitted violations more efficiently. 

Which Type of Cases will be Covered under the Summary Procedure? 

• Stockbroker or Clearing Member Expelled 
  • A stockbroker or a clearing member, in respect of which intimation has been received by the Board from all the stock exchange(s) or the clearing corporation(s), as the case may be, of which it is a member, that such stockbroker or clearing member has been expelled as its member. 
• Depository Participant Termination 
  • A depository participant, in respect of which intimation has been received by the Board from all the depository(ies) where the participant is admitted, that the depository participant agreement has been terminated by the depository(ies). 
• Intermediary Claiming Returns or Performance 
  • An intermediary found to have made claim(s) of return or performance in respect of or related to a security or securities unless otherwise permitted by the Board to make such claim(s). 
• Intermediary Making False or Misleading Claims 
  • An intermediary found, by the Board or by such an agency as may be specified by the Board, to have made false or misleading claim(s) of return or performance in respect of or related to a security or securities. 
• Intermediary Failing to Pay Fees 
  • An intermediary which fails to pay fees to the Board or to such body as may be specified, in terms of provisions of the relevant regulations governing such intermediary. 
• Untraceable Intermediary 
  • An intermediary which is not traceable. 
• Intermediary Failing to Submit Reports 
  • An intermediary which has failed to submit periodic reports for three consecutive periods, or such other period(s) as may be specified, to the Board in terms of provisions of the relevant regulations governing such intermediary or the circular(s) issued thereunder. 
• Intermediary Violating Securities Laws 
  • An intermediary admitted violating any of the securities laws or directions, instructions or circulars issued by the Board.  

What is the Procedure for Summary Proceeding? 

• The competent authority issues a notice to the intermediary concerned, stating the grounds for initiating proceedings and the alleged violation. 
• The intermediary has 21 days from receipt of the notice to submit a written response with any documentary evidence. 
• No further opportunities or hearings are granted beyond this 21-day period. 
• The competent authority considers the case facts, material on record, and written submissions (if any). 
• An order is to be passed within 21 days of either:  
  • Receiving the intermediary's written submissions, or  
  • The expiry of the submission deadline if no response is filed. 
• The order may cancel or suspend the intermediary's registration certificate or impose other appropriate measures. 
• The authority may impose conditions to protect investor interests, clients, or the securities market. 
• The intermediary may be required to satisfy the Board on various factors, including record maintenance, grievance redressal, and client service continuity. 
• If registration is cancelled, the intermediary must immediately cease activities, return the certificate, transfer activities or allow clients to withdraw funds/securities, and handle any incurred liabilities. 
• The order is sent to the intermediary and uploaded on SEBI's website. 
• Copies of cancellation orders are also sent to relevant stock exchanges, clearing corporations, depositories, or supervisory bodies for publication on their websites. 

How do the Proposed Summary Proceedings Align with Global Standards? 

• Global Trend: The move towards summary proceedings reflects a global trend in regulatory practices for more efficient market oversight. 
• International Alignment: This approach aligns with practices of international regulatory bodies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the US and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK. 
• Efficient Regulatory Enforcement: Regulatory bodies worldwide are employing summary or expedited procedures to ensure compliance and protect market integrity. 
• Balance of Swift Justice and Due Process: The aim is to strike a balance between swift justice and thorough due process, which is a common goal in global regulatory frameworks. 
• Streamlined Enforcement: The proposed changes aim to cut down lengthy processes, aligning with global practices for faster and more efficient regulatory enforcement. 
• Protection of Investor Interests: The focus on swift action to protect investor interests is consistent with international regulatory objectives.