List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan granted bail to the accused in a money laundering case.     

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Ramkripal Meena v. Directorate of Enforcement.  

What is the Background of Ramkripal Meena v. Directorate of Enforcement Case? 

• The petitioner was working as a Manager of the school and was appointed as Assistant to the Co-ordinator of REET exam. 
• He had access to the question paper kept in the strong room. The petitioner is alleged to have taken the copy and leaked it to other co-accused. 
• The petitioner was to receive a bribe of Rupees five crores out of which the investigating authorities are said to have successfully recovered a sum of Rs.1,77,80,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Seven Lakh and Eighty Thousand) from various persons. 
• The First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Section 420, 120B and Section 4/6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. 
• The second FIR was registered under Section 302, Section 365 and Section 120 B and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 
• Thereafter, an investigation was initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) to trace out the process of crime and ascertain the role of suspected persons. 
• The bail plea before the Court in this case was with respect to the money laundering case. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court in this case observed that the complaint case was at the stage of charge framing and 24 witnesses are proposed to be examined. 
• The conclusion of proceedings thus will take some reasonable time. Also, the petitioner had been in custody for more than a year.  
• The Court granted bail considering the following factors: 
  • The period spent in custody 
  • No likelihood of conclusion of trial within a short span 
  • The petitioner is already on bail in the predicate offence 
  • Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances 
• The Supreme Court finally granted bail with the conditions that the petitioner would not attempt to contact the witnesses and would furnish list of immovable assets etc. 

What is the Provision for Bail under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)? 

• Section 45 of PMLA provides for bail in cases involving money laundering. 
• Section 45 of PMLA provides that no person accused of an offence shall be released on bail unless 
  • the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and 
  • where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing  
    • that he is not guilty of such offence and 
    • that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail 
• Further, this Section provides that following persons may be released on bail if Special Court directs: a person, who,  
  • is under the age of sixteen years, or  
  • is a woman or is sick or  
  • infirm,  
  • or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees  
• Further, Section 45 (2) provides that the limitation on granting of bail specified in sub-section (1) shall be in addition to the limitations under the CrPC or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. 

How did Section 45 of PMLA evolve? 

• Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2018) 
  • The Supreme Court in this case struck down Section 45 of PMLA on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 
  • The provision was struck down on the ground that it imposed strict conditions for grant of bail in respect of offences mentioned in Part A of the Schedule to PMLA.   
• Amendments made to Section 45 by Finance Act, 2018 
  • By way of Amendment done by Finance Act, 2018 the words “Part A of the Schedule” was substituted by the expression “under this Act”. 
  • Post this the language of Section 45 of PMLA was brought at par with other special laws. 

• Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) 
  • The Supreme Court in this case upheld the constitutional validity of Section 45 of PMLA post amendment of 2018.  
  • The Court held that post amendment of 2018 the provision in the form of Section 45 of PMLA is reasonable and has direct nexus with the purposes and object sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act and does not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness. 
  • As regards the prayer for grant of bail, irrespective of the nature of proceedings, including those under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or even upon invoking the jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 may apply. 
  • The beneficial provision of Section 436A of the 1973 Code could be invoked by the accused arrested for offence punishable under the 2002 Act. 
• Review Petition 
  • A review petition is filed against the above judgment of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022). 
  • There are several grounds for review. However, the ground that pertains to Section 45 of PMLA is as follows: 
    • The twin test was held to be unconstitutional by the Court in the judgment of Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2018). T he judgment has however overruled the findings of this judgment and reinstated the twin conditions. 
    • The argument put forward is that such conditions are mentioned in other laws as well. 
      • However, it is to be noted that all the other laws that contain such twin conditions pertain to offences that involve loss of limb or life and are usually related to terror. 
      • Moreover, in other offences the protection of provisions of CrPC is there. The same is however missing under this Act where the accused finds out the grounds of his arrest upon actual arrest. 
      • Further, the judgment has even held that in case of anticipatory bail applications as well twin test will be applicable. 
• Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office (2024) 
  • The Court held in this case that if the accused appears before the Special Court pursuant to the summons, it cannot be treated that he is on custody. 
  • Therefore, here it is not necessary for the accused to apply for bail. 
  • The Special Court can however direct the accused to execute a bond under Section 88 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The order accepting bond under Section 88 CrPC does not amount to grant of bail and hence the twin conditions for grant of bail are not applicable here.

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Virendra Sahani has held even without dependency the insurance company's liability does not cease and does not bar the claimants from filing a claim petition.   

What was the Background of the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Virendra Sahani Case?  

• In this case a person was crossing road who was hit by the auto rikshaw and died.  
• The parents, wife and daughter of the deceased (Defendant) filed for claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). 
• The income of the deceased mentioned was not proved but it was pleaded that the deceased was a skilled labour and his income was Rs. 6000/-. 
• The defendant argued that the claim by the parents of the deceased is not maintainable as they used to live separately in a village and therefore, they cannot claim as dependents of the deceased. 
• The MACT however passed an order in the favour of the defendant and computed the compensation of Rs. 14,14,000/-. 
• The plaintiff aggrieved by the decision of MACT filed the present petition before the Bombay High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Bombay High Court observed various cases and inferred that even in the absence of dependency does not cease the rights of the person claiming under the deceased to claim compensation.  
• It was further added by the Bombay High Court that even without dependency the insurance company's liability does not cease and does not bar the claimants from filing a claim petition. 
• It was held by the High court that parents are dependents of the son irrespective if they live together or separately. 
• Therefore, the contention made by the petitioner in the present case by the plaintiff was dismissed and it was concluded by the Bombay High Court that all the claimants are entitled to compensation and confirmed the decision of the MACT.    

Case Law 

• Montford Brothers of St Gabriel & Ors v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014): In this case it was held that every legal representative of the deceased is entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (MV). 

Objective of Motor Vehicle Act? 

• Road safety. 
• Efficient transportation. 
• Protection of the rights of road users. 
• The Act provides a comprehensive framework for traffic regulations, vehicle standards, licensing, and penalties for violations.   

Who are the Legal Representatives Under Motor Vehicle Act? 

• As per Clause (1) of Section 166 of MV Act following can be the claimants and the legal representatives as: 
  • He has sustained an injury. 
  • He is the owner of the property.  
  • He is the legal representative of the person who died in the motor accident. 
  • He is the agent authorized by the injured person, or by the legal representatives of the deceased. 

Required Conditions to be Entitled for Claiming Under Claim Tribunals? 

• As per Section 165, Clause (1) the following circumstances are required to be entitled for claiming compensation under claim tribunals: 
  • When the accident involves death or bodily injury to a person.  
  • When the accident results in the loss of any property of a third party. 
  • When such accidents arise out of the use of motor vehicles.

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

The Bombay High Court recently in Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP restricted third parties from exploiting Bollywood singer Arijit Singh's personality rights, including his voice, likeness, and signature, without his consent. This decision highlights the legal response to the growing issue of unauthorized use of celebrities' attributes by AI content creators, reflecting concerns about privacy and intellectual property in the digital age. 

What was the Background of Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP? 

• The plaintiff, Arijit Singh, is a prominent Indian singer who has achieved celebrity status and developed significant goodwill and reputation over the course of his career. 
• Singh filed a suit in the Bombay High Court seeking protection of his personality rights and right of publicity against unauthorized commercial exploitation by various defendants. 
• The defendants are alleged to have engaged in activities including:  
  • Creating AI voice models mimicking Singh's voice without authorization 
  • Producing and sharing tutorials on how to replicate Singh's voice using AI 
  • Selling merchandise bearing Singh's name, image and likeness without permission 
  • Falsely representing an association with Singh for commercial events 
  • Creating and sharing GIFs and other content using Singh's image and persona 
  • Registering domain names incorporating Singh's full name 
• Singh argues these activities violate his personality rights, right of publicity, and moral rights as a performer under the Copyright Act. 
• The plaintiff contends the unauthorized use of his persona, especially through AI voice cloning, risks economic harm to his career and reputation. 
• The defendant argues that their use of AI technology to generate new audio or video content, including songs and videos, purportedly in the plaintiff's name, voice, photograph, image, likeness, and persona, does not constitute a breach of rights. 
  • The defendant asserts that such content is created and used in ways considered transformative or non-commercial in certain contexts.  
  • The defendants also contend that their activities are not aimed at jeopardizing the plaintiff's career or livelihood but rather at exploring technological advancements and creative expressions within the bounds of fair use. 
• Defendants' perspective, the creation and commercialization of AI-generated content featuring the plaintiff’s attributes are defended as innovative uses of technology that should be protected under the freedom of expression and creative freedom.  
  • They maintain that the legal framework governing intellectual property and personality rights should be interpreted to accommodate technological developments, potentially leading to a redefinition of permissible uses of AI-generated content. 
• Singh sought ex parte interim injunctions against the defendants to restrain further violations of his rights. 

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court prima facie found that the plaintiff, Arijit Singh, has established his celebrity status and acquired valuable personality rights and right of publicity. 
• The Court observed that unauthorized use of AI tools to convert any voice into that of a celebrity constitutes a violation of the celebrity's personality rights. 
• The Court held that such technological exploitation infringes upon an individual's right to control and protect their own likeness and voice and undermines their ability to prevent commercial and deceptive uses of their identity. 
• The Court expressed shock at the vulnerability of celebrities, particularly performers, to being targeted by unauthorized generative AI content. 
• The Court observed that the defendants were attracting visitors to their websites and AI platforms by capitalizing on the plaintiff's popularity and reputation, thereby subjecting his personality rights to potential abuse. 
• The Court found that creation of new audio or video content in the plaintiff's AI voice or likeness without consent could potentially jeopardize the plaintiff's career and livelihood. 
• The Court noted that allowing continued unauthorized use of the plaintiff's persona not only risks severe economic harm but also creates opportunities for misuse by unscrupulous individuals. 
• The Court held that even though freedom of speech allows for critique and commentary, it does not grant license to exploit a celebrity's persona for commercial gain. 
• The Court observed that the plaintiff had made a conscious personal choice to refrain from brand endorsements or gross commercialization of his personality traits in recent years. 
• The Court found that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff and that he would suffer irreparable injury without the requested relief. 
• The Court deemed it appropriate to grant a dynamic injunction to address potential future violations of the plaintiff's rights. 
• The Court held that for certain infringing videos, rather than complete takedown, removal of all references to the plaintiff's personality traits would suffice. 

Why is Freedom of Speech and Expression Not Absolute? 

• The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in constitutional frameworks, is a cornerstone of democratic societies, allowing individuals to voice their opinions and engage in open discourse.  
• The right is not absolute and is subject to limitations and restrictions as prescribed by law.  
• The principle of freedom of speech must be balanced against other compelling interests and rights, including privacy, intellectual property, and public order. 
• Legal jurisdictions universally recognize that the exercise of free speech must be tempered by harm and infringement on others' rights.  
• While individuals have the right to express their views, this right does not extend to actions that would constitute defamation, incitement to violence, or the unauthorized exploitation of personal attributes, including those of celebrities. 
• Intellectual property and personality rights, the law provides specific protections against unauthorized use or exploitation of an individual’s persona.  
  • This includes their name, likeness, voice, and other personal attributes. Courts have consistently upheld that the right to free expression cannot be invoked to justify such unauthorized exploitation, emphasizing that respect for personal rights and privacy is a legitimate and enforceable interest. 
• Judicial precedents affirm that freedom of speech and expression does not permit the infringement of intellectual property rights or the commercial exploitation of an individual's persona without consent. Such protections are integral to ensuring that the exercise of free speech does not encroach upon the rights of individuals to control and benefit from their own personal and professional identity. 
• In summary, while freedom of speech and expression is a vital and protected right, it is bounded by legal constraints designed to safeguard other rights and interests. This balance ensures that the exercise of free expression does not undermine or infringe upon the protected rights of individuals, including their personal and intellectual property rights. 

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?  

• In India, the right to freedom of speech and expression is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.  
• The philosophy behind this Article lies in the Preamble of the Constitution, where a solemn resolve is made to secure to all its citizen, liberty of thought and expression. 
• The following aspects are included in Article 19(1)(a): 
  • Freedom of Press 
  • Freedom of Commercial Speech 
  • Right to Broadcast 
  • Right to Information 
  • Right to Criticize 
  • Right to expression beyond national boundaries 
  • Right not to speak or right to silence 
• Essential Elements of Article 19(1)(a), COI 
  • This right is available only to a citizen of India and not to foreign nationals. 
  • It includes the right to express one’s views and opinions at any issue through any medium, e.g. by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture, film, movie etc. 
  • This right is, however, not absolute and it allows Government to frame laws to impose reasonable restrictions. 
• Article 19(2) provides for reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.  
• The judicial interpretation of these provisions has evolved over time, shaping the contours of free speech in India. 

Landmark Case  

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)  
  • Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalized sending "offensive" messages through communication services.  
  • The court held that the provision was unconstitutionally vague and had a chilling effect on free speech. 
  • This judgment emphasized the importance of protecting online speech and set a high bar for restrictions on freedom of expression. 
  • However, the courts have consistently held that freedom of speech is not absolute.  
• Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)  
  • The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation laws, noting that the right to free speech does not mean freedom to hurt another's reputation, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
  • The concept of personality rights, which includes the right to publicity, has been recognized by Indian courts as an extension of the right to privacy under Article 21.  
• ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2003) 
  • The Delhi High Court acknowledged the commercial value of a celebrity's identity and the need to protect it from unauthorized exploitation.