List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that before exercising the power to grant police custody remand, the Courts must apply judicial mind.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case held that in the case of Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat.

What is the Background of Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat Case?

• The petitioner was made the accused in First Information Report where the allegation made against the petitioner was that he received a sum of Rs. 1.65 crores in cash towards the sale of 15 shops but the possession of the same was not handed over to the complainant.
• The petitioner apprehending his arrest sought anticipatory bail and the application was filed before the High Court.
• The Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
• Thereafter notice of appearance was issued to the petitioner and in compliance to that he appeared before the 6^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Surat on which date the police officer filed an application seeking his police custody remand for seven days.
• Despite the fervent submission made by the counsel of the petitioner that the Supreme Court while providing interim protection to the petitioner did not grant any liberty to the investigating officer to seek police custody remand, the 6th ACJM (Respondent contemner No 7) remanded the petitioner to police custody.
• Thus, a petition was filed under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) against:
  • The Investigating Officer who filed an application for remand.
  • The 6^th ACJM who granted the police custody

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court held that in the light of the order passed by the Court if the investigating officer felt that there were genuine grounds to seek police custody the proper course would have been to approach this Court and not approach the Magistrate.
• The Court observed that the criminal jurisprudence requires that before exercising the power to grant police custody remand the Courts must apply judicial mind so as to arrive at satisfaction as to whether the police custody remand is genuinely required.
• Thus, the Court in this case held that the following are liable for contempt of Court:
  • The Investigating officer who applied for police custody
  • The Magistrate who granted the police custody in derision of the orders of the Supreme Court.

What are the Kinds of Custody?

• Police Custody:
  • When the police officer brings the accused to the police station it is called police custody.
  • In case of police custody, the police have the physical custody of the accused.
  • Here the accused is lodged in the police station lock up.
  • The purpose of police custody is to give the police means to gather evidence through custodial interrogation.
• Judicial Custody:
  • It means the accused is in the custody of the concerned Magistrate.
  • Here the accused is lodged in jail.
  • The purpose of permitting judicial custody is to ensure that the accused does not tamper with the evidence, threaten the witnesses or flee.

What is the Provision for Custody under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)?

• Section 187 (1) provides that:
  • Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody
  • It appears that the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours fixed by Section 58
  • And there are grounds for believing that the information or accusation is well founded
  • The officer in charge of police station (not below the rank of sub-inspector) shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Magistrate
  • A copy of entries in the diary and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
• Section 187 (2) provides:
  • The Magistrate to whom the accused is forwarded under this Section
  • Irrespective of whether he has jurisdiction or not
  • After taking into consideration whether such person has not been released on bail or his bail has been cancelled
  • Authorize from time-to-time detention in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit
  • For a term not exceeding fifteen days in whole, or in parts
  • At any time during the initial 40 days or 60 days out of detention period of 60 days or 90 days as the case may be as provided in sub-section (3)
  • and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction.
• Section 187 (3) provides:
  • The Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, beyond the period of fifteen days,
  • if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so
  • but no Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused person in custody under this sub-section for a total period exceeding:
    • ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more;
    • sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence
  • And on expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXV for the purposes of that Chapter.

What are the Similarities and Differences between Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 187 of BNSS?

What are the Case Laws Regarding Police Custody?

• Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell- I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992)
  • The scheme of Section 167 of CrPC is intended to protect the accused from methods which may be adopted by “some overzealous and unscrupulous police officers”.
  • In this case it was held that the police custody shall be limited to only first 15 days.
  • It is to be noted that this position was later doubted by the Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji v. State (2023). Infact the BNSS has done away with this position. There is yet some ambiguity regarding this point even with the coming into force of the BNSS. (Read more: Problems with Section 187 of BNSS)
• Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan (1994)
  • The Court held that the word “remand” used in Section 167 (2) is a misnomer as remand can only be to the very same custody from where the arrestee was released.
  • However, under Section 167 (2) the first order if custody can either be “police custody” or “judicial custody” depending on the requirement of the case.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court has upheld its power to review Delimitation Commission orders if they are deemed clearly arbitrary or in violation of constitutional principles. Although judicial review in delimitation cases it is typically restricted, the Court can intervene when an order severely conflicts with constitutional values.

• Held by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in the matter of Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India and Ors.

What was the Background of Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod v. Union of India and Ors.?

• The appellant filed a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court challenging the delimitation exercise conducted by the Delimitation Commission.
• The delimitation exercise resulted in the reservation of Bardoli Legislative Assembly Constituency, Gujarat for the Scheduled Caste community.
• The Delimitation Commission reserved the constituency in exercise of its powers under the Delimitation Act, 2002.
• The Delimitation Commission issued Order No. 33, dated 12.12.2006, which received the assent of the President of India.
• The appellant's writ petition sought to challenge the validity of the Delimitation Commission's order.
• The Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition at the threshold, citing Article 329(a) of the Constitution of India,1950 .
• Article 329(a) of the Constitution states that the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies shall not be called in question in any court.
• The delimitation exercise in question was undertaken in the year 2006.
• The appellant appealed against the Gujarat High Court's judgment dated 21.09.2012 to the Supreme Court.
• The appeal before the Supreme Court pertains to the interpretation of Article 329(a) and the scope of judicial review in matters related to delimitation exercises.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court does not approve the High Court's view that orders of delimitation of constituencies are entirely insusceptible to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• While Article 329 restricts the scope of judicial scrutiny regarding the validity of delimitation laws, it cannot be construed as imposing a complete bar on judicial review for every action of the delimitation exercise.
• The Court held that constitutional courts can check the validity of Delimitation Commission orders against the touchstone of the Constitution.
• If a Delimitation Commission order is found to be manifestly arbitrary and irreconcilable with constitutional values, the Court can grant appropriate remedies to rectify the situation.
• The Supreme Court opined that completely barring judicial intervention would leave citizens without any forum to plead their grievances, which would be contrary to the Court's duties and the principle of separation of powers.
• The Court held that constitutional courts can undertake judicial review within a limited sphere at an appropriate stage in delimitation matters.
• The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal and set aside paragraph 3 of the High Court's judgment to the extent it held there is a bar to challenging delimitation orders.
• The Court stated that while no grounds were made out to interfere with the 2006 delimitation exercise, the appellant may approach the High Court again if so advised, keeping in view subsequent events.

What is Article 329 of the Constitution?

• About:
  • Article 329 is part of Part XV of the Constitution of India, 1950, which specifically addresses elections.
  • It is included within a series of articles (Articles 324-329) that discuss various aspects of the electoral process, from the conduct of elections to the roles and responsibilities of election officials.
• Judiciary and Electoral Matters
  • Article 329 specifically concerns the role of the judiciary in electoral matters. It outlines the limitations on judicial interference, ensuring that certain electoral processes are shielded from legal challenges, except through specific channels.
• Article 329(a):
  • Prohibition of Judicial Review: Article 329(a) prohibits the judiciary from challenging the constitutionality of laws relating to the delimitation of electoral districts or the allocation of seats to those districts.
• Article 329(b):
  • Amendment History: This clause was amended by the Constitution (39^th Amendment) Act, 1975.
  • Election Petitions: It stipulates that no election to either House of Parliament or the Legislature of a State shall be called into question except through an election petition. Such petitions must be presented to an authority designated by law, made by the appropriate Legislature.
  • Legal Framework: The manner of presenting these petitions must also be in accordance with the law made by the appropriate Legislature. This provision ensures that election-related inquiries are exclusively addressed through the mechanism of election petitions.
• Complementary Legislation
  • The Representation of the People Act, 1951, complements Article 329(b) by empowering high courts to hear and decide election petitions.
  • Decisions made in these petitions by high courts can then be challenged in the Supreme Court of India.

What are Landmark Judgments on Judicial Intervention in Cases Related to Elections?

• Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of T.N., (2020)
  • This case interpreted Articles 243O and 243ZG of the Constitution, which are similar to Article 329.
  • It was noted that a constitutional Court can intervene for facilitating elections or when a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power is made out.
• Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission and others (1966 SCC Online SC 12)
  • This was a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court.
  • The case restricted judicial intervention when it would unnecessarily delay the election process.
  • The Court clarified that this judgment does not support a complete restriction on judicial review in delimitation matters.

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Ahamad Khan & Ors. v. Bhaskar Ddatt Pandey & Ors. has held that the person’s share can be alienated but not the shares belonging to Hindu Joint Family Property.

What was the Background of Ahamad Khan & Ors. v. Bhaskar Ddatt Pandey & Ors. the Case?

• In this case, the respondent filed the suit before the Civil Judge Junior Division for declaration of title, partition, permanent injunction and declaration of Will void and invalid.
• The respondents argued that the disputed land is the part of Hindu Undivided family (HUF) as the suit land was ancestral property and all the legal heirs are entitled for equal share in the property.
• It was also argued that the sales executed by the plaintiff were invalid as the property is of HUF.
• The respondents were restricting the construction by the petitioners on the disputed land.
• The final purchaser is the petitioner in the present suit.
• The petitioners contented that the suit property is self-acquired property of the seller, and the sale executed by them was valid.
• It was also contended that he cannot be restrained from construction on his own property.
• The Civil Judge Junior Division, after proper findings, held that if the property was Joint Family Property, then no coparcener could alienate a specific piece of land without a proper partition.
• The decision was appealed before the District Judge who confirmed the order of the Civil Judge Junior Division.
• The appellant in the present petition approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that in a coparcenary property the shares of the person in the property can be alienated but not the piece of the property which belongs to Hindu Joint Family Property.
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court also put emphasis upon Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
  • It was noted that during the pendency of the case no property in dispute can be transferred, which may affect the rights of the parties in the suit.
  • The court also concluded that the doctrine of lis pendens ensures that the property in dispute remains in the court's control and transfer during the pendency of the suit will not affect the court ruling.
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court concluded that the lower courts were correct in restraining the petitioners from raising construction on the disputed land.
• The court found no jurisdictional error or material illegality in the orders passed by the lower courts, as they aligned with the legal principles governing Joint Hindu Family Property and the transfer of property during litigation.

What are the Legal Provisions in Relation to Coparcenary Rights?

• Coparcener
  • When a child acquires right in the ancestral property by birth in the Hindu Undivided family as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA)
  • All the common descendants of the Karta (the head of the Hindu family) up to 4^th generation.
  • The rights of the coparceners hence change with the birth and death of the family members.
  • The Mitakshara School of law recognizes coparcenary rights based on the proximity of connections in the family and only the male members were entitled for the shares in the ancestral property.
  • The Dayabhaga School has more widened approach where the ancestral property can also be passed to female members of the family and if the coparcener dies without children, then the property may also be passed to his widow.
• Coparcenary Property or Hindu Joint Family Property
  • A Hindu joint family property is the property jointly owned by the members of the HUF.
  • As per the HSA, the coparcenary property is the ancestral property shared by all the coparceners in the Joint property of a family.
  • If the coparcener decides to claim partition, the joint status of the family ends.
  • Following individuals born in a joint family can be a coparcener-
    • Male members born in a joint family
    • Sons, grandsons and great-grandsons
    • Unmarried daughters
    • All members of the family descended from a common ancestor
    • Wives of male members
    • Married daughters (can be a coparcener but not a member of HUF)
• Restrictions on Coparceners
  • No one other than the Karta has the power to alienate joint family property. This is also done only when there is a legal necessity, or for the benefit of the estate, or there is an indispensable duty that needs to be taken care of.
  • If a coparcener misuses the coparcenary property, the other coparceners can restrain him for any further use or have legal rights over the property.