List of Current Affairs

Source: Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held that the notice under Section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) should contain the crime number, offence alleged, and a copy of FIR should be attached with it.       

• The Karnataka High Court held this in the case of Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad v. State of Karnataka.  

What is the Background of Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad v. State of Karnataka Case? 

• The petitioner in this case claims to be a reputed renowned journalist. 
• He received a notice on WhatsApp on 6th June 2024. This notice was styled to be issued under Section 41 (1)(a) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) which does not refer to registration of any crime under which the notice was issued. 
• The petitioner claims to have enquired about the notice and sought reasons for the issuance of notice, however, he was not informed of the crime details. 
• Therefore, the petitioner came to the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court observed in this case that the notice so issued though quotes Section 41 (1)(a) of CrPC it is infact issued under Section 41-A of CrPC as the petitioner is directed to appear before the Police. 
•  Any notice issued under Section 41- A if not complied with results in arrest of the noticee. Therefore, the noticee must be aware of why he is being summoned to the police station. 
• A citizen must know why he is being summoned and the information given to the citizen cannot be half baked. The notice should contain the crime number and the purpose for which he is being summoned. 
• The Court held that the notice can be issued electronically but the police officer must mention the crime number and also attach a copy of FIR to the communication. 
• The Court then compared Section 35 of BNSS with Section 41 of CrPC. 
• The Court finally issued guidelines to summon any person. The drill that should be followed are: 
  • The notice under Section 35 of the BNSS shall mention the crime number and the offence alleged in the crime number. This can be communicated to the noticee either through the conventional method or through electronic mode. 
  • The communication shall attach a copy of the FIR so registered, as the FIR would contain the gist of the complaint. 
  • In the event notice does not contain the crime number, the offence alleged or appending of the FIR, subject to just exceptions, the noticee is not obliged to appear before the officer who has directed him to appear, and no coercive action can be taken for non-appearance. 
  • It is also necessary for the Police Department to bring about a robust system for the FIR being uploaded immediately on their registration and make it search friendly. 

What is the Provision for Arrest and Notice for Arrest ? 

• Section 41 and Section 41 A of CrPC provides for arrest and the notice of appearance before police officer respectively. This is contained in Section 35 of BNSS. 
• Comparison between CrPC and BNSS: 

• It is to be noted that under CrPC the notice for appearance before police officer is contained in Section 41 A and the grounds of arrest are mentioned in Section 41. However, under BNSS both these provisions have been amalgamated under Section 35 of BNSS.  
• A new provision is added in the form of Section 35 (7).  
• Section 35 (7) of BNSS provides that no arrest shall be made without prior permission of the officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in case: 
  • The offence is punishable for less than three years; and 
  • Such a person is infirm or above sixty years of age. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India has ruled that the high enrollment fees imposed by State Bar Councils are unconstitutional as they infringe on aspiring lawyers' right to practice and undermine principles of equality.

• The Court mandated a cap on these fees, setting Rs.750 for general category advocates and Rs.125 for SC/ST advocates, emphasizing that such fees should not discriminate against marginalized groups. 

What was the Background of Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India Case? 

• The Advocates Act, 1961 (the Act) was enacted to amend and consolidate laws relating to legal practitioners and create a common Bar for India. 
•  The Act establishes State Bar Councils (SBCs) and the Bar Council of India (BCI). 
• SBCs are responsible for admitting advocates, maintaining rolls, handling misconduct cases, and safeguarding advocates' rights. 
• BCI's functions include setting professional conduct standards, overseeing SBCs, and regulating legal education. 
• To be admitted as an advocate, one must meet specific qualifications outlined in Section 24 of the Act. 
• Section 24(1)(f) stipulates the enrolment fees payable to SBCs and BCI. 
•  SBCs charge additional fees beyond the statutory enrolment fees, ranging from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 42,000 in total. 
•  A petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) challenging these additional fees as violating Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. 
• SBCS fee structure is violative of Article 19(1)(g), authorities can impose fees only as per the legislative intent of the parent Act. 
• The quintessential link between the right to profession under Article 19(1)(g) and how it impacts the other fundamental rights- the right to dignity under Article 21 and the right to equality under Article 14. 
•  The Supreme Court issued notice on the petition, recognizing it as a significant issue. 
•  Similar petitions from various High Courts were transferred to the Supreme Court for consideration. 
•  The main issues to be addressed are whether the enrolment fees charged by SBCs contravene Section 24(1)(f) of the Act, and whether other miscellaneous fees can be made a pre-condition for enrolment. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that exorbitant enrollment fees charged by State Bar Councils (SBCs) violate an aspiring lawyer's right to choose a profession and dignity under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the COI.  
• The Court ruled that enrollment fees cannot exceed Rs. 750 for general category advocates and Rs. 125 for SC/ST category advocates. 
• The Court emphasized the link between the right to profession under Article 19(1)(g) and its impact on the right to dignity under Article 21 and the right to equality under Article 14. 
• The Court found that high enrollment fees create barriers to entering the legal profession, particularly for those from marginalized and economically weaker sections, thus violating the principle of substantive equality. 
• The Court held that the excessive enrollment fees set by SBCs are manifestly arbitrary under Article 14 and create economic barriers for lawyers from marginalized sections. 
• The Court interpreted the purpose of the Advocates Act to promote inclusivity of the bar, which cannot be defeated by implementing arbitrary enrollment fee measures. 
• The Court ruled that the SBCs' policy to charge exorbitant fees is manifestly arbitrary and not in conformity with Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. 
• The Court observed that the right to practice law is both statutory under Section 30 of the Advocates Act and fundamentally protected by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). 
• The Court held that the current enrollment fee structure charged by SBCs is unreasonable and infringes Article 19(1)(g). 
• The Court concluded that SBCs cannot charge enrollment fees beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. 
• The Court ruled that SBCs and BCI cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated enrollment fee and stamp duty as a pre-condition to enrollment. 
• The Court's decision will have prospective effect, and SBCs are not required to refund excess enrollment fees collected before the date of this judgment. 

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it? 

Advocate Act,1961:

• Section 24 of Advocate Act 1961 deals with Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll. 
• Section 24(1)(f) prescribed that he has paid, in respect of the enrolment, stamp duty, if any, chargeable under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), and an enrolment fee payable to the State Bar Council of six hundred rupees and to the Bar Council of India, one hundred and fifty rupees by way of a bank draft drawn in favour of that Council. 

Constitution Law:

• Article 14 deals with equality before law. 
  • Article 14 states that The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. 
• Article 19 deals with the protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.  
  • Article 19(1) (g) states all citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. 
• Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. 
  • Article 21 states that No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
• Principles set out for levy of fees by authorities:  
  • The power to impose restrictions under Article 19(1)(g) is not absolute and must be exercised reasonably. 
  • Fees or licenses must be valid and levied based on the authority of law. 
  • Delegated legislation contrary to or beyond the scope of the parent legislation's policy places an unreasonable restriction, violating Article 19(1)(g). 

Right to Profession, Dignity, and Equality: 

• Right to Profession: Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India "All citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business." 
  • Subject to Article 19(6), which allows for reasonable restrictions. 
• Right to Dignity: Article 21 of the Constitution of India "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." 
  • The Supreme Court has interpreted this to include the right to live with human dignity. 
• Right to Equality: Article 14 of the Constitution of India "The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." 
• These fundamental rights are often read together by the courts to ensure substantive equality and protection of individual dignity in professional spheres. 

What are the Major Case Laws Referred to in this Case? 

• Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India (2023):  
  • The court held that ensuring equality in outcomes through various forms of affirmative action contributes to the larger aim of substantive equality. 
• Khoday Distilleries Ltd v. State of Karnataka (1996):  
  • Established principles for challenging delegated legislation: a) The test of arbitrary action for executive actions doesn't necessarily apply to delegated legislation. b) Delegated legislation can only be struck down if manifestly arbitrary. c) Manifest arbitrariness occurs when not in conformity with the statute. d) Delegated legislation is also manifestly arbitrary if it offends Article 14. 
• Mohammad Yasin v. Town Area Committee (1952):  
  • Focused on the validity of bylaws and the scope of authority in imposing license fees. 
  • Justice SR Das held that the license fee affected business owners by: (1) Taking away their property (money) (2) Restricting their right to do business 
  • The license fee was found to violate Article 19(1)(g) and didn't fall under 'reasonable restrictions'. 
• R M Seshadri v. District Magistrate (1954):  
  • A Constitution bench case dealing with conditions imposed on movie theater licensees. 
  • The court found the conditions to be vague, widely couched, and lacking clear instructions. 
  • These conditions were held to violate Article 19(1)(g) as they harshly affected the cinema business. 

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Sajid Muhammedkutty v. State of Kerala and Another., has held that talaq-e-biddat must be pronounced with an intention of irrevocable and instant talaq and mere non-compliance of the law would not amount the same. 

What was the Background of the Sajid Muhammedkutty v. State of Kerala and Another Case? 

• In this case, the respondent filed a case before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class against the petitioner for committing an offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (PRM Act). 
• The respondent alleged that the petitioner performed instantaneous Talaq upon them, which amounted to Talaq –e- biddat (Tripple Talaq) and is illegal as per PRM Act. 
• It was also alleged that the respondent has performed the Talaq with the intention of irrevocable talaq as he did not attempt for reconciliation by 2 arbiters as per the laws. 
• The petitioner contented that the Talaq was performed on three dates periodically and therefore it is Talaq – e- Sunnat and is not illegal. 
• The petitioner filed the present petition before the Kerala High Court for quashing the proceedings against him. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• It was observed by the Kerala High Court that the very intention of talaq-e-biddat is to pronounce instant and irrevocable talaq and if the intention is not the same and there is some non-compliance with the law it would not amount to Talq-e-biddat. 
• It was further explained by the Kerala High Court that Talq – e- Sunnat when pronounced by and not completed legally. it would not automatically amount to talaq –e- biddat. 
• The High Court observed that the petitioner's intention was not to pronounce instant and irrevocable Talaq and therefore cannot be punished as per Section 4 of PRM Act. 
• The Kerala High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. 

What are the Relevant Provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019? 

• Section 3: Talaq to be Void and Illegal:  
  • This section states that any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal.  
• Section 4. Punishment for Pronouncing Talaq: 
  • This section states that any Muslim husband who pronounces talaq referred to in section 3 upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 

What are the Landmark Judgements Cited? 

• Sajani A. v Dr. B. Kalam Pasha and Another (2021): In this case the Kerala High Court held that to infer that the divorce was not instantaneous the parties must attempt reconciliation by two arbiters chosen from the family of each party. 
• Jahfer Sadiq E.A & anr. v. Marwa & Anr. (2021): In this case it was held that if the talaq is not instantaneous and irrevocable, it could not be said that offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of PRM Act. 

What is Talaq? 

About: 

• It is defined under Section 2(c) of PRM Act which states that talaq’ means, talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband. 

Modes of Talaq: 

• Talaq-e-Sunnat: It can be pronounced in two ways as: 
  • Talaq Hasan: 
    • This consists of three pronouncements made during successive tuhrs, no intercourse taking place during any of the three tuhrs. 
    •  The first pronouncement should be made during a tuhr, the second during the next tuhr, and the third during the succeeding tuhr. 
  • Talaq Ahsan: 
    • This consists of a single pronouncement of divorce made during a tuhr (period between menstruations) followed by abstinence from sexual intercourse for the period of iddat.  
    • When the marriage has not been consummated, a talaq in the ahsan form may be pronounced even if the wife is in her menstruation.  
    • Where the wife has passed the age of periods of menstruation the requirement of a declaration during a tuhr is inapplicable. 
    •  Furthermore, this requirement only applies to an oral divorce and not a divorce in writing. 
• Talaq-e-Biddat: 
  • This consists of three pronouncements made during a single tuhr either in one sentence like “I divorce thee thrice, or in separate sentences like “I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee”. 
  • A single pronouncement made during a tuhr clearly indicates an intention irrevocably to dissolve the marriage like “I divorce thee irrevocably. 

Difference Between Talaq-e-Sunnat and Talaq-e- Biddat