List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/S Parthas Textiles and Another v. State of U.P. and Another highlighted change brought by Section 65 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which expands the methods for serving summons to companies.  

What was the Background of M/S Parthas Textiles and Another v. State of U.P. and Another? 

• M/S Parthas Textiles and a partner of the company filed a petition challenging proceedings initiated against them under the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 
• The case involves a cheque issued on behalf of M/s Partha Textiles that bounced.  
• A complaint was filed against the firm, but summons was issued to a partner personally instead of to the firm. 
• The key issue is whether, when a cheque is issued by a registered firm and bounces, summons should be issued to the firm or to its partner in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court noted that as per the complaint, only the firm M/S Partha Textiles was arraigned as accused through its partner, and the demand notice after the cheque bounced was also sent to the firm. 
• The court observed that on bouncing of a cheque issued on behalf of a registered firm, the primary liability is of the firm, and its partner can be vicariously liable, but in the present case, the partner was not implicated as an accused along with the firm. 
• The court held that under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 or Section 190(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court takes cognizance against an offence, not the offender. However, summons are issued against the offender to inform them about the charges to which they must reply. 
• The court, upon conjoint reading of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 63 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and Section 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code, concluded that whenever a company is accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, summons must be issued in the name of the company and service can be effected by serving it on the Principal Officer or Local Manager of the Company. 
• The court cited precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Iridium India Telecom v. Motorola Incorporated and others (2011), which established that a corporation can be held criminally liable. 
• The court noted that Section 63 of the CrPC permits the issuance of summons to a company through its Principal Officer, and after receiving summons, it is for the company to appoint any representative to appear on its behalf. 
• The court observed that the corresponding provision to Section 63 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the new Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is Section 65, which also prescribes that summons of a company or corporation may be served through the Director apart from the Manager, Secretary and other Officers of the company. 
• The court held that if a company is arraigned as accused in a complaint, summons ought to be issued to the company through its Principal Officer or Local Manager as mentioned in Section 63 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 
• The court noted that service of summons upon the company can be made as per the mode provided under Section 144 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which allows for service by speed post or courier service approved by the Court. 
• The court concluded that in the present case, though the Firm (M/S Partha Textiles) was arraigned as an accused, summons was improperly issued to its partner personally, which does not constitute proper service for the firm. 
• The court found that in this case, although the firm was named as the accused, summons was improperly issued to the partner personally. 
• The court quashed the summoning order and non-bailable warrant issued against the partner (applicant no. 2). 
• The court directed the lower court to issue a fresh summoning order in accordance with the proper procedure within one month. 
• The court noted that although new laws (Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) have come into effect, this pending case should proceed under the old Criminal Procedure Code provisions. 

Service of Summons Under CrPC  

• About : 
  • Section 63 of CrPC deals with service of summons on corporate bodies and societies. 
  • Service of summons on a corporation may be effected by serving it on the secretary, local manager or other principal officer of the corporation. 
  • Alternatively, service may be effected by letter sent by registered post, addressed to the chief officer of the corporation in India. 
  • When sent by registered post, service shall be deemed to have been effected when the letter would arrive in ordinary course of post. 
  • The term "corporation" in this section means an incorporated company or other body corporate. 

Service of Summons Under BNSS  

• About 
  • A summons is a legal document issued by a court ordering a person to appear before it. Under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), summons are typically issued to the accused or witnesses to ensure their presence in court proceedings.  
    • Section 63 to 71 of BNSS laid down the provision regarding summons.  
    • In Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) the provision regarding summons was laid down under Sections 61 to 69.   
    • The main objective of issuing a summons is to notify individuals about the legal action and to provide them an opportunity to present their case or testimony. 
• Section 65 
  • Section 65 deals with Service of summons on corporate bodies, firms, and societies. 
  • Service of summons on a company or corporation may be effected by serving it on the Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company or corporation. 
  • Alternatively, service may be effected by letter sent by registered post addressed to the Director, Manager, Secretary or other officer of the company or corporation in India. 
  • When sent by registered post, service shall be deemed to have been effected when the letter would arrive in ordinary course of post. 
  • "Company" means a body corporate for the purposes of this section. 
  • Service of summons on a firm or other association of individuals may be effected by serving it on any partner of such firm or association. 
  • For firms or associations, service may also be effected by letter sent by registered post addressed to such partner. 
  • When sent by registered post to a partner, service shall be deemed to have been effected when the letter would arrive in ordinary course of post. 

Differences between Section 65 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Section 63 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 

• Scope of entities covered:  
  • BNSS: Explicitly includes companies, corporations, firms, and other associations of individuals. 
  • CrPC: Covers corporations, which includes incorporated companies and registered societies. 
• Officers for service:  
  • BNSS: Specifies Director, Manager, Secretary, or other officer. 
  • CrPC: Mentions secretary, local manager, or other principal officer. 
• Addressee for registered post:  
  • BNSS: Can be addressed to Director, Manager, Secretary, or other officer. 
  • CrPC: Addressed to the chief officer of the corporation in India. 
• Provision for firms and associations:  
  • BNSS: Includes specific provision for serving summons on firms and associations through partners. 
  • CrPC: Does not explicitly mention firms or associations. 

Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that right to speedy trial is guaranteed by the Constitution.       

• The Rajasthan High Court held this in the case of Kailash Chand v. State of Rajasthan. 

What is the Background of Kailash Chand v. The State of Rajasthan Case? 

• An application was filed in this case under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• It was the case of the accused that no case was made out for alleged offences and hence he should be granted bail. 
• The petitioner has been in custody for a period of three years  

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court observed in this case that more than three years have been and only 12 witnesses have been examined out of 30 by the prosecution. 
• It was observed that the trial is continuing at a snail’s pace and it would further take more time to complete the trial.  
• It was held that the accused cannot be kept behind bars in a pending trial for want of production of evidence against him. 
• The Court further observed that the right to speedy trial is guaranteed by the Constitution and it cannot be snatched on the ground of seriousness or heinousness of the crime. 
• Thus, the Court granted bail under Section 439 of the CrPC. 

What is the Origin of Right to Speedy Trial? 

• The right to a speedy trial is a derivation from a provision of Magna Carta. 
• A fair trial implies speedy trial. No procedure can be reasonable, fair and just unless the procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. 
• Quick justice is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 

What is Right to Speedy Trial? 

• Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna (1979) 
  • In this case, a writ of habeas corpus become filed on behalf of men and women languishing in jails within the state of Bihar anticipating trial. 
  • A number of them had been in prison had spent maximum sentence which could have been imposed on them for the offence of which they had been accused. 
  • In this case the Supreme Court expanded the scope of interpretation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and held that the right to speedy trial is borne out of Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.  
  • The Supreme Court through Hon’ble P.N. Bhagwati, Justice expressed it’s anguish over the number of undertrials languishing in the jails in India.   
• Santosh De v. Archna Guha (1994) 
  • The Court observed in this case that the delay in conducting the case for 8 years was due to the prosecution. 
  • Also, for the last 14 years there was no progress in the trial of the case. 
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the delay was entirely due to the prosecution which defeats the right of the accused to speedy trial. 
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order quashing the proceedings as the delay defeats the accused right to speedy trial. 
• Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 
  • The Court observed that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal and revision. 
  • The constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is properly reflected in Section 309 of CrPC. 

Is Right to Speedy Trial a Ground for Bail? 

• Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya v. National Investigation Agency (2021) 
  • In this case the accused persons pleaded for post arrest bail. 
  • The Court considering the aspect that the undertrial prisoner has a fundamental right to timely trial granted the benefit of post arrest bail in favour of the appellant on the ground that he had been languishing in jail for a long time. 
• Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 
  • The Court observed here that a balance has to be made between the right of the prosecution to lead evidence of it’s choice and establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt and simultaneously the right of the accused guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. 
  • The Court held that looking at the length of time spent by the accused in jail and the likelihood of the trial taking still more time to conclude the accused should be released on bail. 
• Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 
  • The Court took cognizance of the fact that there are a large number of under trials languishing in jails. Further, arrest is a draconian measure that must be used sparingly.  
  • It was observed that accused can be considered for enlargement on bail on the basis of unreasonable delay being one of the grounds. 
• Lichhman Ram @ Laxman Ram v. State (2023) 
  • The Rajasthan High Court held that while adjudicating bail application against the backdrop of the right to a speedy trial following factors should be considered: 
    • The delay should not have been a defence tactic. Who has caused the delay is also to be seen. Every delay does not necessarily prejudice the accused. 
    • The aim is not to interpret the right to speedy trial in a manner so as to disregard the nature of offence, gravity of punishment, number of accused and witnesses, prevailing local conditions and other systemic delays 
    • If there is a strong reason to believe that the accused will surely flee from justice if released on bail and it will be a hard task for the investigating agency to reapprehend him, then the benefit of bail should not be extended in his favour. 
    • If it is shown by placing compelling material on record that the release of the accused may create a ruckus in the society or that he will create such a situation wherein the prosecution witnesses will not come forward to depose against him or that he may otherwise hamper the evidence of prosecution in any other manner, then utmost caution needs to be exercised in such cases before granting bail to the accused. 

What is Right to Speedy in International Context? 

• The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of United States of America reads that in all criminal prosecutions accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. 
  • Also, there is a Federal Act of 1974 called the ‘Speedy Trial Act’ which establishes a set of time limits for carrying out major events like information, indictment etc. 
  • In the case of Strunk v. United States the US Supreme Court held that the denial of an accused's right to speedy trial results in a decision to dismiss the indictment or in reversion of a conviction. 
• Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 lays down that ‘Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.’ 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently in Gene Campaign & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on petitions challenging the Union Government's approval for genetically modified mustard.  

• Justice BV Nagarathna invalidated the approval, citing public interest concerns and procedural flaws, while Justice Sanjay Karol upheld it, emphasizing scientific development. 
• With differing opinions, the bench referred the matter to the Chief Justice to constitute a larger bench, delaying implementation pending further review, despite the government's agreement not to proceed with the decision. 

What was the Background of Gene Campaign & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors ? 

• The petitions challenging the Union Government's approval to release genetically modified (GM) mustard for commercial cultivation in India. 
• This GM mustard variety, called 'HT Mustard DMH-11', would be the first transgenic food crop to be cultivated in India if approved. 
• The Union Government had agreed not to implement the decision during the petition hearing. 
• The GEAC, functioning under the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, was approved on 18th October 2022. 
• The subsequent decision for the environmental release of transgenic mustard was made on 25th October 2022. 
• Non-governmental organizations and activists filed public interest litigations (PILs) challenging this decision. 
• In 2012, the Supreme Court had constituted a Technical Expert Committee (TEC) to examine GMO regulations. 
• The TEC had opined that the GMO regulatory system in India was in 'complete disarray' and needed improvement. 
• The Court expressed displeasure that GEAC did not consider the TEC's report before making its decision in October 2022. 
• The release of GM Mustard was put on hold after the Court asked the Centre to maintain status quo in November 2022. 
• The petitioners, argued about the dangers of genetically modified organisms, particularly in open-field trials. 
• The Centre argued that the scope of the court's inquiry should be narrow and that the current bio-safety regime addresses all concerns. 
• The Centre also contended that GM Mustard has a higher yield compared to non-GM varieties and that large-scale adoption of GM crops has occurred in other major agricultural countries. 
• The Supreme Court delivered a verdict on 23rd July, 2024, on these petitions. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court noted that judicial review of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee's (GEAC) decision is permissible. 
• The Bench observed that the Union of India is required to evolve a national policy regarding genetically modified (GM) crops, to be framed in consultation with all stakeholders, including states and farmers' groups. 
• The Court directed the Ministry of Environment and Forests to conduct a national consultation within four months for policy formulation. 
• The Bench held that the Union must ensure scrupulous verification of experts' credentials and mitigation of conflicts of interest, with rules to be framed accordingly. 
• The Court emphasized that provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) Act should be enforced in matters of importing GM food. 
• Justice Nagarathna opined that the GEAC approval of 18th October, 2022, and the subsequent decision of 25th October, 2022, regarding environmental release of transgenic mustard are "vitiated" and contrary to the principle of public interest. 
  • The Court observed that the decision was taken in haste, without considering several aspects, including the impact on health and environment. 
• Justice Nagarathna noted that the failure to adequately assess the impact on health and environment infringes upon intergenerational equity. 
  • The Bench expressed displeasure at GEAC's non-consideration of the Technical Expert Committee's (TEC) report before making its decision in October 2022. 
  • Justice Nagarathna held that ignoring the TEC report would result in undermining the earlier orders of the Court. 
• The Court found that the impugned approval was in gross violation of principles of public trust. 
• Justice Karol, in his dissenting opinion, held that the approval given by GEAC was not vitiated and issued directions for strict monitoring by the Union Government. 
  • Justice Karol observed that the Court often must balance between competing interests of concerned organizations and the Government's push for scientific development. 
  • The Court noted that procedural gaps would not necessarily result in the violation of fundamental rights. 
  • Justice Karol concluded that the conditional approval leading to field trials is in line with the governmental approach for scientific temper. 
  • The Bench directed that GEAC would be responsible for taking all precautions to ensure no contamination takes place during field testing. 
• In view of the split verdict, the Court directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger bench to hear the matter afresh. 

What are Genetically Modified (GM) Crops? 

• GM crops are derived from plants whose genes are artificially modified, usually by inserting genetic material from another organism, in order to give it new properties, such as increased yield, tolerance to a herbicide, resistance to disease or drought, or improved nutritional value. 
• Earlier, India approved the commercial cultivation of only one GM crop, Bt cotton, but Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) has recommended GM Mustard for commercial use. 
• Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) regulations govern the approval, cultivation, and commercialization of genetically modified organisms, ensuring safety assessments, environmental impact evaluations, and compliance with national and international standards. 

What is GM Mustard? 

• Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11) is an indigenously developed transgenic mustard. It is a genetically modified variant of Herbicide Tolerant (HT) mustard. 
• DMH-11 is a result of a cross between Indian mustard variety ‘Varuna’ and East European ‘Early Heera-2’ mustard. 
• It contains two alien genes (‘barnase’ and ‘barstar’) isolated from a soil bacterium called Bacillus amyloliquefaciens that enable breeding of high-yielding commercial mustard hybrids. 
• DMH-11 has shown approximately 28% more yield than the national check and 37 % more than the zonal checks and its use has been claimed and approved by the GEAC. 
• “Bar gene” maintains the genetic purity of hybrid seed. 

What are Regulatory Mechanisms for Genetically Modified (GM) Crops in India? 

• Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC):  
  • Principal regulatory body under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change 
  • Responsible for approving large-scale field trials and commercial release of GM crops 
  • Reviews biosafety data and environmental impact assessments 
  • GEAC safety assessment includes molecular characterization ,Food safety studies and environmental safety studies, including field trials, impact on soil, pollen flow studies 
• Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM):  
  • Operates under the Department of Biotechnology 
  • Oversees research activities and small-scale field trials 
  • Monitors safety-related aspects of ongoing research projects 

What is the Status of GM Crops in India? 

• BT Cotton: 
  • To tackle the bollworm attack that had devastated cotton crops in the past, Bt cotton was introduced which was jointly developed by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco) and the US seed company Monsanto. 
  • In 2002, the GEAC approved Bt Cotton for commercial cultivation in 6 states such as Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu. It has to be noted that, Bt cotton is the first and only transgenic crop approved by the GEAC. 
• BT Brinjal: 
  • Mahyco jointly developed Bt Brinjal with the Dharwad University of Agricultural Sciences and the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. 
  • Even though GEAC 2007 had recommended the commercial release of Bt Brinjal, the initiative was blocked in 2010. 
• GM-Mustard 
  • Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 or DMH-11 is a genetically modified variety of mustard developed by the Delhi University’s Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants.  
  • The researchers at Delhi University have created a hybridized mustard DMH-11 using “barnase/barnstar” technology for genetic modification.  
  • It is a Herbicide Tolerant (HT) crop. 
  • Commercial cultivation of high-yielding GM mustard in India has not begun yet.