List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors v. Prakash Kumar Dixit has held that an appeal is maintainable against the Bench even if there is no punishment order.

What was the Background of the Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors v. Prakash Kumar Dixit Case?

• The respondent was posted as Officer Commanding in the Central Reserve Police Force when disciplinary proceedings started against him due to alleged act of misconduct on his part.
• He was removed from his service by the Trial Court against which he appealed before the Delhi High Court.
• The Delhi High Court reversed the order of the Trial Court and reappointed the respondent in the service with other benefits.
• The order of the High Court was not complied with due to which respondent filed contempt proceedings before the Delhi High Court.
• On 8^th March 2021 the respondent was re-appointed in the services and on 17^th October 2021 he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant on a notional basis with effect from the order dated 22^nd March 2023.
• The respondent superannuated on 31^st March 2023.
• The Single Bench Judge of the High Court ordered the respondent to all promotions till the rank of Inspector General from 2021 to his retirement date, 31^st March 2023.
• The Judge noted that there has been a willful disobedience of the directions passed by the division bench of Delhi High Court.
  • The court held the Inspector General of Police (Personnel) and Deputy Inspector General (Personnel) guilty of contempt of court.
  • The court granted the opportunity to issue fresh order granting promotion to the respondent to the rank of IG to bring him at par with his immediate junior as per the merit cum seniority list at the time of the appointment.
• The order was appealed by the plaintiff in a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench.
  • The Bench stated that the appeal was not maintainable as there was no punishment orders given against the plaintiff.
  • The Bench stated that the appeal is not maintainable as it does not fulfill the requirements of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (CC).
• The plaintiff appealed the decision of the Division Bench before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court observed the purview of Section 19 of CC Act.
  • The Supreme Court held that the findings of the Division Bench need to be determined.
  • The Supreme Court relied upon the judgement of the Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others (2006) where it was held that the appeal under Section 19 lies only against an order imposing punishment for contempt.
• The Supreme Court held that the respondent was entitled to promotion to the rank of Inspector General was amenable to an appeal by drawing inferences from the Midnapore People’s case.
  • It was inferred that in contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy.
  • Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India based on what law permits.
• The Supreme court reversed the order of the Division Bench and held that the Letter Patent Appeal to be heard.
• The Supreme Court also stated that no action would be taken against the authorities till the matter is listed again before the Delhi High Court.

What is the Contempt of Courts Act 1971?

• The CC Act was passed by Parliament in the year 1971 and came into force on 24^th December 1974.
• The main objective of the CC Act is to protect the integrity of the courts.
• This CC Act gives inherent powers to the court to punish against its own contempt.
• Contempt of court seeks to protect judicial institutions from motivated attacks and unwarranted criticism, and as a legal mechanism to punish those who lower its authority.
• When the Constitution was adopted, contempt of court was made one of the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India.
• Separately, Article 129 of the Constitution conferred on the Supreme Court the power to punish contempt of itself.
• Article 215 conferred a corresponding power on the High Courts.

Kinds of Contempt of Court

• Civil Contempt: It is the willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
• Criminal Contempt: It is the publication of any matter or the doing of any other act which scandalizes or lowers the authority of any court or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding or obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner.

Punishment under Contempt of Courts Act

• Section 12 of the CC Act states that punishment for the guilty with imprisonment that may extend to six months or fine of Rs 2,000 or both.
• It was amended in 2006 to include “truth and good faith” as a defense.
• It was added that the court may impose punishments only if the act of the other person substantially interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of justice.

Defenses under Contempt of Courts Act

• Civil Contempt
  • The following defenses can be covered under Section 8 of the CC Act.
    • No knowledge of order.
    • Disobedience or breach was not willful.
    • Order disobeyed is vague or ambiguous.
    • Order involves more than reasonable interpretation.
    • Compliance with the order is impossible.
    • The order has been passed without jurisdiction.
• Criminal Contempt
  • Innocent publication and distribution of matte (Section 3 of the CC Act)
  • Fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings (Section 4 of the CC Act)
  • Fair criticism of judicial act (Section 5 of the CC Act)
  • Bonafide complain against the presiding officer of a subordinate court. (Section 6 of the CC Act)
  • No substantial interference with due course of justice (Section 13 of the CC Act)
  • Justification by truth (Section 13 of the CC Act).
  • The statement complained of is open to different interpretations.

Appeal under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

• The provisions related to appeal are given under Section 19 of the CC Act as
  • Clause (1) states that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt—
    • where the order or decision is that of a single judge, to a Bench of not less than two judges of the Court.
    • where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court: Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
  • Clause (2) states that pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that—
    • The execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended.
    • If the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail.
    • The appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt.
  • Clause (3) states that where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2).
  • Clause (4) states that an appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed—
    • In the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days.
    • In the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against.

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

The Justice Bharat P. Deshpande clarifies that the Civil Procedure Code,1908 (CPC) does not account for the time a miscellaneous application is pending when calculating the delay in filing a written statement. This ruling impacts how courts handle delays in civil cases and ensures strict adherence to procedural deadlines.

• The Bombay High Court held this in the case of Federal Brands Ltd. v. Cosmos Premises Pvt.

What was the Background of Federal Brands Ltd. v. Cosmos Premises Pvt. Ltd?

• The petitioner (defendant) received a summons from the Trial Court on 18^th August, 2022, in a suit filed by the respondent (plaintiff).
• The defendant initially sought and was granted an extension of time to file a written statement.
• Instead of filing the written statement, the defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint on 5^th November 2022.
• The Trial Court heard and rejected this application on 9^th February 2023.
• Following the rejection, the defendant filed an application for condonation of delay on 3^rd March, 2023, along with a written statement to be taken on record.
• An additional affidavit supporting the delay application was filed on 27^th June, 2023.
• The Trial Court rejected the delay application on 11^th December, 2023.
• The defendant claimed that their in-house advocate had advised that filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC negated the need to file a written statement until the application was decided.
• The defendant also argued that the period during which the Order VII Rule 11 application was pending (from 3^rd November 2022, to 9^th February, 2023) should be excluded when calculating the delay.
• Based on this calculation, the defendant claimed the delay in filing the written statement was only 14 days.
• The defendant challenged the Trial Court's rejection of the delayed application in the present petition before the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

Court’s Observations

• The CPC does not provide for any exclusion or extension of the time period for filing a written statement while a miscellaneous application is pending.
• Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC requires a written statement to be filed within 30 days of receiving summons, with a possible extension up to 90 days for reasons recorded in writing by the court.
• The court noted that the defendant could have easily filed the written statement along with the application for rejection of the plaint.
• The High Court found that the defendant's calculation of delay was based on an incorrect presumption, as there is no provision for excluding the time an Order VII Rule 11 application was pending.
• The court observed that the written statement was filed after a delay of 160 days, not 14 days as the defendant claimed.
• The High Court emphasized that ignorance of law or incorrect advice is not sufficient grounds for condonation of delay.
• The court noted that blaming an in-house advocate without giving them an opportunity to defend or explain is not proper.

Grounds Sought for Condonation of Delay:

• The defendant claimed that their in-house advocate had advised that filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC negated the need to file a written statement until the application was decided.
• The defendant argued that the period during which the Order VII Rule 11 application was pending should be excluded when calculating the delay.
• The petitioner contended that if the Order VII Rule 11 application had been allowed, there would have been no need to file a written statement at all.
• The defendant asserted that the necessity to file the written statement arose only after the rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application.
• Based on their calculation excluding the period of the pending application, the defendant claimed the actual delay in filing the written statement was only 14 days.
• The petitioner argued that they had a strong case in their defense and would suffer serious prejudice if denied the opportunity to file a written statement.
• The defendant expressed willingness to deposit costs for the condonation of delay and argued that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff/respondent by allowing the delay to be condoned.

What is a Written Statement?

About

• A written statement ordinarily means a reply to the plaint filed by the plaintiff. It is the pleading of the defendant. Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) contains provisions related to written statements.
• A written statement under the CPC 1908 is
  • A formal response filed by the defendant to the plaintiff's claim or plaint.
  • It usually contains the defendant's version of facts, any denials of the plaintiff's allegations, and legal defenses.
  • It's typically filed within 30 days of the defendant receiving the summons, though this time frame can be extended in certain circumstances.
  • The written statement should address all material facts alleged in the plaint, either admitting or denying them specifically.
  • It may also include any counterclaims the defendant wishes to make against the plaintiff.
  • The statement should be verified by the defendant or their authorized representative.

What are Legal Provisions Involved?

• Rule 11 Order VII deals with Rejection of Plaint.
  • Grounds for Rejection of Plaint:
    • The Court shall reject a plaint under the following circumstances:

(a) Where the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action;

(b) Where the plaintiff, upon being directed by the Court to correct an undervaluation of relief within a specified timeframe, fails to comply with such direction;

(c) Where, despite proper valuation of relief, the plaint is filed on insufficiently stamped paper, and the plaintiff, when ordered by the Court to furnish the requisite stamp-paper within a prescribed period, fails to do so;

(d) Where it is apparent from the pleadings that the suit is barred by operation of law;

(e) Where the plaint is not filed in duplicate;

(f) Where the plaintiff fails to adhere to the provisions set forth in rule 9.

• Provided that the Court shall not extend the time limit fixed for correction of valuation or submission of requisite stamp-paper unless:

(i) The Court is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the plaintiff was prevented from complying with the Court's direction within the specified time due to exceptional circumstances; and

(ii) The Court determines that a refusal to grant such extension would result in grave injustice to the plaintiff.

• Rule 1 of Order VIII deals with written statements.
  • Filing Deadline: The defendant is required to submit their written statement of defense within 30 days from the date they are served with the summons.
  • Extension of Time: If the defendant fails to file within the initial 30-day period, the Court may grant an extension.
  • Reasons for Extension: Any extension must be for reasons recorded in writing by the Court.
  • Maximum Extension: The Court can extend the deadline up to a maximum of 120 days from the date of service of summons.
  • Costs for Late Filing: If an extension is granted, the Court may impose costs on the defendant as it deems appropriate.
  • Absolute Deadline: Under no circumstances can the written statement be filed after 120 days from the date of service of summons.
  • Forfeiture of Right: If the defendant fails to file the written statement within 120 days, they forfeit their right to file it altogether.
  • Court's Discretion: After the 120-day period expires, the Court is prohibited from allowing the written statement to be taken on record.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

• On 5^th August 2024 Hon’ble Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud launched the e-DHCR, a new portal for reportable judgments of Delhi High Court.
• This portal will contain judgments rendered by the Delhi High Court from the year 2007 to May 2024.
• It is a user friendly platform for reporting judgments of Delhi High Court.
• The portal was launched in the presence of CJI DY Chandrachud along with Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka and Delhi High Court Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Yashwant Varma.
• Justice Yashwant Varma is the Chairman of e-DHCR Committee.

What were the Observations of CJI DY Chandrachud?

• CJI DY Chandrachud said that this will mark a shift in ensuring the democratized dissemination of legal knowledge. The legal precedents and the judgments will now be available to anyone with the internet connection.
• CJI DY Chandrachud said that this will be a treasured resource for legal professionals, researchers, academics, and students.
• He said that the initiative will set new standards for transparency, accountability and inclusivity in the legal realm.

What did Acting Chief Justice Manmohan Say About the Platform?

• Justice Manmohan said that advanced Artificial Intelligence (AI) search algorithm has been used in this platform to improve search accuracy which will help the users to navigate through legal information accurately.
• He observed that with the help of Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software, 16435 pages of judicial record available on e- DHCR portal have been translated. This has ensured language preferences in both English and Hindi.
• Thus, he said that the portal will help not only the young lawyers but also the law students not well versed in English.

What are Similar Initiatives?

• e- SCR Portal
  • The Electronic Supreme Court Reports (e-SCR) portal is a portal designed for various stakeholders to find out similar judgments.
  • It is an initiative to provide the digital version of the Supreme Court's judgments in the manner as they are reported in the official law report Supreme Court Reports.
  • Judgments from the inception of the Supreme Court in the year 1950 till date would be available on this platform.
  • The search facility in e-SCR provides for free text search, search within search, case type and case year search, Judge search, year and volume search bench strength search options.
  • The inbuilt elastic search facilitates quick and user-friendly search results.
  • The judgements will be available on the apex court website, its mobile app and on the judgment portal of the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG).
• Digital Courts 2.0
  • This uses AI for real time transcription of court proceedings.
  • It represents a significant leap towards efficient record keeping and judicial processes.
• FASTER (Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records)
  • It is a digital platform to communicate interim orders, stay orders, bail orders etc., of the Supreme Court to authorities concerned through a secured electronic communication channel.
  • There have been cases where jail inmates are not released despite bail orders passed by the Supreme Court due to delay in communication of such orders.
  • So, it was needed to utilise information and communication technology tools for efficient transmission of court’s orders.
• SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court’s Efficiency)
  • It is an AI based portal that is aimed at assisting judges with legal research.
  • It is a tool that collects relevant facts and laws and makes them available to a judge.
  • It is not designed to take decisions, but only to process facts and to make them available to judges looking for an input for a decision.
  • Initially, it will be used on an experimental basis by the judges of Bombay and Delhi High Courts who deal with criminal matters.
• e- Courts Project
  • Virtual Courts or e-Courts is a concept aimed at eliminating the presence of litigants or lawyers in the court and adjudication of the case online.
  • The e-Courts project was conceptualized on the basis of the “National Policy and Action Plan for Implementation of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the Indian Judiciary – 2005” submitted by e-Committee, Supreme Court of India with a vision to transform the Indian Judiciary by ICT enablement of Courts.
  • The e-Courts Mission Mode Project, is a pan-India Project, monitored and funded by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, for the District Courts across the country.
  • The judiciary system in India with the help of e-courts can overcome the challenges and make the service delivery mechanism transparent and cost-efficient.
• Draft Rules For Live Streaming of Court Proceedings
  • The Rules are part of the National Policy and Action Plan for implementation of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the judiciary.
  • The Rules would cover live-streaming and recording of proceedings in High Courts, lower courts and tribunals.
  • The draft rules provide that all proceedings in high courts can be telecast except for cases relating to matrimonial disputes, gender-based violence, those involving minors and “cases, which in the opinion of the Bench, may provoke enmity amongst communities likely to result in a breach of law and order”.
• NJDG Portal
  • CJI DY Chandrachud in 2023 announced that now the Supreme Court’s data related to the pendency and disposal of cases will be available on the NJDG portal.
  • NJDG offers an extensive repository containing orders, judgments, and case particulars from District and Subordinate Courts, HCs and SC.
  • This web portal enables open access to statistics for all visitors.
  • Furthermore, NJDG functions as a decision support system, assisting courts in monitoring case delays based on various attributes, such as year wise, coram wise pending cases and pending cases in each branch of law such as civil, criminal etc.