List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Shivendra Nath Verma v. Union of India has held that the sanction granted as per Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (PC Act) cannot be held invalid merely because the cognizance was taken by the court prior to the sanction. 

What was the Background of the Shivendra Nath Verma v. Union of India Case? 

• In this case the Trail Court took the cognizance of the matter before granting the valid sanction from the competent authority as per Section 19(1) of the PC Act. 
• While the sanction was granted after the cognizance was taken by the Trial Court. 
• The same was appealed to the Jharkhand High Court. 
• The Jharkhand High Court upheld the decision of the Trial court in continuing proceedings without sanction and validated the subsequent sanction granted by the competent authority. 
• The High Court stated that taking cognizance prior to the sanction was a procedural irregularity when, later, sanction was granted by the competent authority. 
• A criminal appeal was made to the Supreme Court by the appellant to dismiss the order of the High Court and to hold the sanction null and void that is granted after the cognizance taken by the court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the Trial Court committed an error in taking cognizance without sanction. 
• Further the Supreme Court stated that the Central Bureau of Investigation may file the sanction before the concerned court and accordingly the proceedings can commence if required. 
• However, the Supreme Court did not accept the argument to invalidate the sanction granted after the cognizance taken by the court as Section 19(1) of PC Act is a procedural section. 
• It was also added by the Supreme Court that such sanctions cannot be considered invalid unless there is any miscarriage to justice. 
• Therefore, the Supreme Court held the sanction as Valid. 

What is Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018? 

• Requirement for Previous Sanction  
  • No court can take cognizance of offenses under sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 alleged against a public servant without previous sanction. 
  • Exceptions are provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. 
• Sanctioning Authorities  
  • For Union affairs: Central Government  
  • For State affairs: State Government  
  • For others: Authority competent to remove the person from office 
• Process for Requesting Sanction  
  • Requests can be made by police officers, investigation agencies, or other law enforcement authorities. 
  • Other individuals must file a complaint in a competent court first. 
    • The court must not have dismissed the complaint under section 203 of CrPC. 
• Safeguards for Public Servants  
  • Public servants must be given an opportunity to be heard before sanction is granted (for non-law enforcement requests). 
• Timeframe for Sanction Decision  
  • The appropriate authority should try to decide within 3 months of receiving the proposal. 
  • An additional month may be granted if legal consultation is required. 
• Guidelines for Sanction  
  • The Central Government may prescribe guidelines for sanctioning prosecution. 
• Definition of Public Servant  
  • Includes those who have ceased to hold office during which the offense is alleged. 
  • Includes those holding a different office at the time of prosecution. 
• Clarification on Sanctioning Authority  
  • In case of doubt, sanction should be given by the authority competent to remove the public servant at the time of the alleged offense. 
• Legal Proceedings and Sanctions  
  • Absence or errors in sanction won't reverse court decisions unless a failure of justice has occurred. 
  • Courts cannot stay proceedings due to errors in sanction unless it results in a failure of justice. 
  • No stay of proceedings on other grounds or revision of interlocutory orders. 
• Determining Failure of Justice  
  • Courts must consider whether objections could have been raised earlier in the proceedings. 
• Explanations  
  • "Error" includes competency of the sanctioning authority. 
  • "Sanction" includes requirements for prosecution by specified authorities or persons. 

Case Law 

• Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka (2012):   
  • In this case the Supreme Court held that if the trial has proceeded to conclusion and resulted in a finding or sentence, the same should not be lightly interfered with by the appellate or the revisional court simply because there was some omission, error or irregularity in the order sanctioning prosecution under Section 19(1).   
  • It was also observed by the court that if the trial Court proceeds, despite the invalidity attached to the sanction order, the same shall be deemed to be non-est in the eyes of law and shall not forbid a second trial for the same offences, upon grant of a valid sanction for such prosecution.

Source: Karnataka High Court  

Why in News?  

A bench of Justice M.G. Uma held that the investigating officers shall get the victim of a rape necessarily examined by or under the supervision of a female registered medical practitioner.      

• The High Court of Karnataka held this in the case of Ajay Kumar Behera v. State of Karnataka.   

What is the Background of Ajay Kumar Behera v. State of Karnataka  Case? 

• The petitioner accused in this case is seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The offences registered against the accused are those punishable under Section 307 and Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The issue before the Court was whether the accused is entitled to bail under Section 439 of CrPC. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Bail Denial 
  • The High Court refused to grant bail to the accused in this case. 
  • The Court noted that the petitioner had two simple injuries, corroborating the victim's statement about assaulting the petitioner during the incident. 
• Procedural Loophole Identified 
  • While refusing bail, the Court observed a loophole in the procedure for medical examination of rape victims. 
  • The Court noted that Section 53 of CrPC provides safeguards for female accused, requiring examination by or under supervision of a female medical practitioner. 
  • However, Section 164A of CrPC, which deals with medical examination of rape victims, lacks similar protections. 
• Legislative Oversight 
  • The Court observed that these provisions have been copied verbatim into the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) without addressing this anomaly. 
  • This oversight causes great injustice to sexual assault victims over 18 years of age. 
• Right to Privacy 
  • The Court emphasized that if the right to privacy is recognized for female accused, there is no excuse to deny this privilege to victims. 
• Court Directives  
  • The Court instructed the Additional Solicitor General and State Public Prosecutor to: 
    • Suggest suitable amendments to Section 184 of BNSS. 
    • Implement meaningful sensitization programs for all stakeholders. 
    • Ensure medical examinations of rape victims are conducted under female registered medical practitioner supervision until BNSS is amended. 
    • Ensure hospitals and medical practitioners provide computer-generated or legibly written wound certificates/medical reports. 
    • Report on steps taken within three months. 

What is Section 184 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023? 

• Section 184 of BNSS provides for medical examination of victim of rape. 
• This was contained in Section 164 A of CrPC. 
• Comparison between Section 164 A of CrPC and Section 184 of BNSS is as follows: 

• It is to be noted that both the provisions are same. The only difference is with respect to Section 184 (6) of BNSS. 
• Section 184 (6) provides that the investigating officer shall forward the report within seven days to the investigating officer who shall forward the same to the Magistrate. This time limit of seven days was earlier missing. 

What are the Loopholes in Section 184 of BNSS? 

• Current Legal Provisions 
  • Section 184 of BNSS does not specify that a female medical practitioner should examine or supervise the examination of a rape victim. 
  • Section 53 of CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) discusses the medical examination of accused persons at the request of police officers. 
• Safeguards for Female Accused 
  • Section 53(2) of CrPC provides protection for female accused:  
    • When a female person needs to be examined, only a female registered medical practitioner can conduct or supervise the examination. 
  • This safeguard is also present in Section 51 of BNSS. 
• Need for Amendment 
  • Section 184 of BNSS requires modification to include similar protection for female victims. 
  • This amendment would ensure that female victims are examined only by or under the supervision of female medical practitioners. 
• Potential Consequences 
  • Without this amendment, the criminal justice system may be perceived as unfriendly to victims. 
  • This oversight could lead to unexpected and negative consequences for female victims during medical examinations. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court recently lifted a 2017 mandate requiring a Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificate for third-party vehicle insurance, responding to concerns from the General Insurance Council. The Solicitor General argued that this requirement could leave accident victims without compensation if vehicle owners, who often cannot afford to pay, are held liable directly. 

What was the Background of MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. ? 

• The case originates from an application filed by the General Insurance Council regarding a Supreme Court order dated 10th August 2017. 
• The 2017 order mandated 100% compliance in linking annual vehicle insurance with Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificates.  
  • This was based on the Environment Pollution (Prevention & Control) Authority's (EPCA) Report No. 73. 
• The Solicitor General, representing the General Insurance Council, pointed out that due to this directive, 55% of vehicles were not taking third-party insurance. 
  • This was making it difficult for accident claimants to get compensation. 
• The Supreme Court, in its initial hearing, recognized the need to strike a balance between ensuring PUC compliance and maintaining third-party insurance coverage for all vehicles.   

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court prima facie observed that a right balance must be struck between ensuring vehicle compliance with Pollution Under Control (PUC) norms and maintaining mandatory third-party insurance coverage for all vehicles. 
• The Court noted with concern that the implementation of its 2017 order had resulted in approximately 55% of vehicles not obtaining third-party insurance, thereby potentially prejudicing the rights of accident victims to receive compensation. 
• The Court acknowledged that neither the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, nor any other statutory enactment or rules framed thereunder, mandates insurance companies to require a valid PUC certificate as a prerequisite for vehicle insurance policy renewal. 
• The Court recognized that strict implementation of the 2017 directive could lead to "disastrous consequences," as it may result in a significant number of vehicles plying without third-party insurance coverage. 
• The Court held that the original condition imposed in the 2017 order, while intended to control pollution by ensuring valid PUC certificates, had inadvertently created a situation that could potentially infringe upon the fundamental rights of citizens to seek compensation in case of vehicular accidents. 
• The Court opined that requiring accident victims to seek compensation directly from vehicle owners, who often lack the capacity to pay, would be against the principles of justice and equity. 
• The Court emphasized the need for an effective solution to address the environmental concerns that prompted the original 2017 order, suggesting the utilization of remote sensing technology for tracking vehicles in the Delhi-NCR region. 
• The Court, in its wisdom, deemed it necessary to modify its previous order to rectify the unintended consequences while maintaining the spirit of environmental protection. 
• The Court reiterated the importance of balancing environmental concerns with the public interest in maintaining adequate insurance coverage for all vehicles. 
• The Court directed the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Solicitor General to propose solutions that would effectively modify the 2017 order while addressing both pollution control and insurance compliance. 

What is PUC? 

• A PUC certificate is an official document certifying a vehicle's emissions comply with prescribed environmental limits. 
• Any authorized police officer in uniform can request a driver to produce a valid PUC certificate. 
• PUC certificates are issued to vehicles that meet the prescribed emission norms after testing. 
• The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 made PUC certificates mandatory for all motor vehicles. 
• A PUC certificate includes the vehicle's license plate number, emission test results, test date, and expiry date. 
• PUC certification is legally required under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 
• The primary purpose of PUC certification is to control and reduce vehicular pollution. 
• PUC certificates are typically valid for 6 months to 1 year, depending on the vehicle type and age. 
• PUC tests measure levels of pollutants such as carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides in vehicle exhaust. 
• Only authorized testing centers can conduct PUC tests and issue certificates. 
• Non-compliance with PUC requirements can result in fines imposed by traffic police or transport authorities. 
• The PUC system indirectly encourages proper vehicle maintenance to meet emission standards. 
• Some Indian states have introduced e-PUC certificates to modernize the process and reduce paper use. 
• Regular PUC checks aim to mitigate excessive vehicular contributions to air pollution in urban areas. 

Which Acts Govern PUC Certificate ? 

• The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This is the primary legislation that provides the framework for regulating motor vehicles in India. 
• The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989: These rules, formulated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provide specific regulations regarding PUC certificates. 
• The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019: This amendment strengthened the PUC requirements and increased penalties for non-compliance. 
• Environment Protection Act, 1986: This act empowers the central government to take measures to protect and improve the environment, which includes setting standards for vehicular emissions. 
• And, various state governments have enacted their own rules and regulations to implement and enforce PUC norms within their jurisdictions, working within the framework provided by these central laws. 

What are the Fine for Non-Compliance of PUC? 

• The fines for non-compliance with Pollution Under Control (PUC) certification requirements in India are primarily governed by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019. Basic fine: The fine for driving a vehicle without a valid PUC certificate is Rs. 10,000. 
• Repeat offense: For subsequent offenses, the fine remains Rs. 10,000. 
• Compounding of offense: In many states, traffic police are authorized to compound this offense on the spot. 
• Additional penalties: In some cases, authorities may also detain the vehicle or suspend/cancel the vehicle's registration certificate. 
• Increased severity: These fines represent a significant increase from the previous penalty of Rs. 1,000 for first-time offenders and Rs. 2,000 for subsequent offenses. 
• Uniform application: The fines are uniform across all states in India, as per the central Motor Vehicles Act. 
• State variations: Some states may have slight variations in implementation or additional local penalties. 

What is Third Party Insurance? 

Statutory Basis and Obligation 

• The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, mandates compensation for losses suffered by third parties in motor vehicle accidents. 
• Section 32-D of the Insurance Act, 1938, imposes an obligation on insurers regarding third-party risk insurance for motor vehicles. 
• As per Section 146 of The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, it is incumbent upon vehicle owners to possess valid third-party insurance for any vehicle operated in a public place. 

Definition and Scope 

• Third-party insurance, as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, is a form of liability insurance wherein an authorized insurer agrees to indemnify the insured against legal liability for injuries or damage caused to a third party. 
• The term "third party," as per Section 145(i) of The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, encompasses the Government, the driver, and any other co-worker on a transport vehicle. 

Salient Features 

• The policy does not extend coverage to injuries sustained by the insured but rather to those injured by the insured's actions. 
• The beneficiary of the policy is the injured third party, not the policyholder. 
• Premium rates for third-party insurance are not contingent upon the value of the insured property. 

Rights of Third Parties 

• Third parties have the right to receive information about the insured's insurance status. 
• The rights of third parties remain unaffected by any judgment or award against the insured person, unlawful restrictions in the policy, or settlements between the insurer and the insured. 
• In the event of the insured's insolvency, their rights against the insurer under the policy shall be transferred to and vested in the third party to whom liability was incurred. 

Limitations on Insurer's Defenses 

• Insurers are restricted to specific defenses as outlined in the Act, including: 
  • Use of the vehicle for hire and reward without proper permit. 
  • Use of the vehicle for racing or speed testing. 
  • Use of a transport vehicle not allowed by permit. 
  • Operation by a driver without a valid license or disqualified from holding such. 
  • Policy rendered void due to non-disclosure of material facts. 
• Recent Legislative Amendments 
  • Mandatory three-year third-party insurance policies for new cars and five-year policies for new two-wheelers. 
  • Removal of the cap on insurer liability. 
  • Increase in minimum compensation for hit-and-run cases to Rs. 2 lakhs in case of death and Rs. 50,000 for grievous injury. 
  • Simplified claims procedure with a 30-day settlement period for claims up to Rs. 5 lakhs. 
• Constitutional Implications 
  • Insurance companies, falling within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution, are considered "State" entities. 
  • As such, they are bound by Article 14 of the Constitution and cannot discriminate or refuse third-party insurance coverage to State-run vehicles. 

Relevant Provisions Related to Third Party Insurance   

• The concept of third-party insurance is under Chapter XI – Insurance of Motor Vehicles Against Third-Party Risks of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 between Sections 145 and 164.  
• The new provisions inserted in Chapter XI under the Act of 2019 include:   
  • Sec.149- Settlement by the insurance company and procedure thereof  
  • Sec.159- Information to be given regarding accident   
  • Sec.162- Scheme for golden hour   
  • Sec.164- Payment of compensation in case of death or grievous hurt.  
  • Sec.164(A)- Scheme for interim relief for claimants   
  • Sec.164(B)- Motor vehicles Accident Fund   
  • Sec.164(D)- Power of State Government to make rules   

Case Law  

K. Gopal Krishnan v. Sankara Narayanan (1968):

• The Madras High Court ruled that a scooter owner cannot purchase a third-party risk policy to cover claims from a pillion rider carried without charge. 
• The insurance provider is not liable for injuries to such a pillion rider unless the scooter owner obtains a policy specifically covering those risks. 
• A private carrier registered with the RTO and covered by an insurance policy is prohibited from transporting passengers or goods for hire or compensation. 
• If a private car is used to transport passengers for hire, and an accident occurs, the insurance provider is not responsible for claims from members of the party employing the insured's private car. 

S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2014):

• The case was initiated by an orthopaedic surgeon seeking more effective legislation to prevent road accidents and improve post-accident care. 
• The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking the court's intervention in enforcing existing laws and enacting new legislative measures. 
• The court directed the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to mandate that general insurers offer only three-year motor third-party insurance policies for new cars. 
• The court also mandated five-year motor third-party insurance policies for new two-wheelers, effective from September 1, 2018. 
• This ruling excludes stand-alone health insurers and specialized insurers from the mandate. 

Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,1999: 

• The Supreme Court that third-party insurance is compulsory under law. 
• The court ruled that the compulsory nature of third-party insurance should not be overridden by any clause in the insurance policy. 
• This decision reinforces the primacy of statutory requirements for third-party insurance over contractual terms in insurance policies. 
• The ruling emphasizes the importance of third-party insurance in protecting the interests of accident victims and ensuring compensation.