List of Current Affairs

Source: Madras High Court  

Why in News? 

The Madras High Court's recent ruling clarifies that "offences against women," which are excluded from plea bargaining, only include gender-centric or gender-neutral crimes, not all crimes involving women.

• Justice G Jayachandran held in the matter of Mr G Venkateshan v. The State. 
• Justice G Jayachandran also recommended that trial courts inform accused individuals of their plea-bargaining rights promptly after charges are framed to ensure they can exercise this option within the 30-day period stipulated by law. 

What was the Background of Mr. G Venkateshan v. The State? 

• Mr. G. Venkateshan was accused of offenses against a Junior Bailiff named Bagyalakshmi. 
• The incident occurred on 2^nd April, 2021, when Bagyalakshmi went to serve a garnishee summons at Venkateshan's residence. 
• Mr. G. Venkateshan allegedly abused Bagyalakshmi verbally, physically assaulted her, and wrongfully restrained her in his house. 
• A case was registered against Venkateshan for offenses under sections 173, 294(b), 323, 342, 353, 427 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. 
• After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was taken up for trial. 
• Mr. G. Venkateshan initially filed a petition to quash the proceedings, which was dismissed by the High Court. 
• Subsequently, Mr. G. Venkateshan expressed his desire to apologize for his conduct and sought to pursue plea bargaining. 
• He attempted to file an application for plea bargaining before the trial court but faced difficulties in getting it accepted. 
• Mr. G. Venkateshan then approached the High Court again, raising concerns about potential bias due to the complainant being a court staff. 

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court explained the term "offences against women" excluded from plea bargaining should be interpreted restrictively to encompass only gender-centric or gender-neutral offences, not all general offences committed against women. 
• The Court clarified that in plea bargaining cases, the imposition of imprisonment is not mandatory, and where no minimum sentence is prescribed, the Court may impose imprisonment ranging from "till the rising of the Court" to a maximum of 1/4th of the prescribed period. 
• The Court emphasized that the plea-bargaining process should commence only upon the application of the accused, and the Court must ensure that such application is made voluntarily and with informed consent. 
• The Court recommended that trial courts should inform eligible accused persons about their right to invoke plea bargaining immediately after framing charges, to ensure timely exercise of this right. 
• The Court suggested that trial courts may seek assistance from Legal Services Authorities to facilitate the Mutually Satisfactory Disposition (MSD) process in plea bargaining cases. 
• The Court states the importance of proper implementation of plea-bargaining provisions to achieve the objectives of speedy trial, reduction of litigation costs, and allowing offenders a chance at rehabilitation. 

What is Section 290 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023( BNSS)? 

About: 

• Section 290 of BNSS deals with application for plea bargaining. Earlier it was given under Section 265B in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC). 
• An accused person may file an application for plea bargaining within 30 days from the date of charge framing in the court where the trial is pending. 
• The application must include a brief description of the case and the related offence. 
• The accused must attach an affidavit stating that:  
  • a) They have voluntarily chosen plea bargaining after understanding the nature and extent of punishment for the offence.  
  • b) They have not been previously convicted of the same offence. 
• Upon receiving the application, the court must issue notice to the Public Prosecutor or complainant and the accused to appear on a fixed date. 
• On the fixed date, the court shall examine the accused on camera, without the presence of the other party, to ensure the application is voluntary. 
• If the court is satisfied that the application is voluntary: 
  •  a) It shall provide up to 60 days for the Public Prosecutor/complainant and the accused to work out a mutually satisfactory disposition. 
  • b) This disposition may include compensation and other expenses to be paid by the accused to the victim.  
  • c) The court will then set a date for further hearing. 
• If the court finds that the application is involuntary or that the accused has previously been convicted of the same offence:  
  • a) It shall proceed with the case according to regular provisions of the Sanhita.  
  • b) The case will continue from the stage where the plea-bargaining application was filed. 
• This process aims to provide a structured approach to plea bargaining, ensuring voluntary participation, protection of victims' interests, and expedited case resolution while maintaining judicial oversight. 

Legal Provision 

• Application for Plea Bargaining (Section 290 BNSS):  
  • An accused must file the application within 30 days of charge framing. 
  • The application must include a case description and an affidavit stating voluntary participation. 
  • The court issues notices to all parties and examines the accused in camera to ensure voluntariness. 
  • If voluntary, the court allows up to 60 days for working out a mutually satisfactory disposition. 
• Guidelines for Mutually Satisfactory Disposition (Section 291 BNSS):  
  • In police report cases, the court involves the prosecutor, investigating officer, accused, and victim. 
  • In non-police report cases, the court involves the accused and victim. 
  • The court must ensure the process remains voluntary throughout. 
  • Parties may participate with their advocates if desired. 
• Report of Disposition (Section 292 BNSS):  
  • The court prepares a report of the satisfactory disposition, signed by all participants. 
  • If no disposition is reached, the court records this and proceeds with the regular trial. 
• Disposal of Case (Section 293 BNSS):  
  • The court awards compensation to the victim as per the disposition. 
  • It may release the accused on probation or under relevant laws. 
  • For offenses with minimum punishment:  
    • a) The court may sentence the accused to half of the minimum punishment.  
    • b) For first-time offenders, it may be reduced to one-fourth of the minimum punishment. 
  • For other offenses:  
    • a) The court may sentence one-fourth of the prescribed punishment. 
    • b) For first-time offenders, it may reduce to one-sixth of the prescribed punishment. 
• Judgment and Finality (Sections 294-295 BNSS):  
  • The court delivers its judgment in open court, signed by the presiding officer. 
  • The judgment is final, with limited appeal options (SLP under Article 136, Writ under Articles 226 and 227). 
• Court Powers and Procedural Matters (Sections 296-297 BNSS):  
  • The court retains all powers related to bail, trial, and case disposal. 
  • Period of detention undergone is set off against the sentence imposed. 
• Savings and Non-application (Sections 298-300 BNSS):  
  • These provisions override inconsistent provisions in the BNSS. 
  • Statements made during plea bargaining cannot be used for any other purpose. 
  • These provisions do not apply to juveniles or children under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?

A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra took suo motu cognizance of an alleged rape and murder of a doctor at a Medical College Hospital in Kolkata and constituted a National Task Force (NTF) to resolve issues related to safety of medical professionals. 

• The Supreme Court gave several directions in this case named In Re: Alleged Rape and Murder of Trainee Doctor in RG Kar Medical College Hospital Kolkata and related issues. 

What are the Facts of the Case? 

• On 9^th August 2024, a 31-year-old postgraduate doctor at a Medical College Hospital in Kolkata was murdered and allegedly raped inside the hospital's seminar room during a 36-hour duty shift. 
• The incident sparked nationwide protests and agitations by doctors' associations, student bodies, and civic groups. 
• On 15^th August 2024, a large mob vandalized the Emergency Ward and other departments of the Medical College Hospital. 
• The Indian Medical Association called for a nationwide withdrawal of medical services (except emergency services) for 24 hours on 17^th August 2024. 
• The incident highlighted the lack of institutional safety for doctors and other medical professionals in India, particularly women who are at higher risk of both sexual and non-sexual violence. 
• The Calcutta High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the investigation on 13^th August 2024. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• Privacy and Dignity Concerns:  
  • The court expressed deep concern over the widespread circulation of the victim's name, photographs, and video clips showing the deceased's body in the media. 
• Equality Rights of Women: 
  • The court opined that preserving safe conditions of work is central to realizing equality of opportunity to every working professional.  
  • This is not just a matter of protecting doctors. Their safety and well-being as health providers is a matter of national interest. 
  • Court further said that the nation cannot await a rape or murder for real changes on the ground. 
• Initial Handling of the Case:  
  • The court questioned the state's handling of the case, particularly the initial attempt to pass off the incident as suicide and the delay in allowing the parents to see the body. 
  • The court raised concerns about the timing of the First Information Report (FIR) registration, which 12 occurred late at night despite the autopsy being conducted earlier in the day. 
• Hospital Security and Vandalism:  
  • The court criticized the state's inability to prevent and handle the vandalism at the hospital during the protest. 
  • The judges expressed disbelief that a mob of 7,000 people could gather without the knowledge or connivance of the police. 
• Security Measures:  
  • Due to safety concerns, the court ordered the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to provide security to the hospital and hostel. 
• Investigation Status:  
  • The court has directed both the CBI (regarding the main case) and the State of West Bengal (regarding the vandalism investigation) to submit status report by 22nd August 2024. 

What are the Court’s Observations on Constitution of a National Task Force? 

• The Supreme Court constituted a National Task Force (NTF) comprising medical professionals and ex-officio members to formulate recommendations addressing safety, working conditions, and well-being of medical professionals. 
• The NTF is tasked with preparing an action plan categorized under two heads:  
  • Preventing violence, including gender-based violence, against medical professionals  
  • Providing an enforceable national protocol for dignified and safe working conditions for all medical professionals 
• The court outlined specific areas for the NTF to consider, including security measures, infrastructural development, employment of social workers, training programs, and prevention of sexual violence. 
• The NTF is required to submit an interim report within three weeks and a final report within two months. 
• All state governments and the central government are directed to collect and submit data on various aspects of hospital security and facilities within one month. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan held that the appellants cannot be denied admission when they were meritorious and could have been admitted against the unreserved category.       

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others. 

What is the Background of Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Case? 

• On 19^th June 2019 an amendment was made in the Madhya Pradesh Education Admission Rules, 2018. 
• New sub rules were established that defined “category” and the method to fill vacancies by category wise reservation was established. 
• On 10^th May 2023 a new amendment was made to the Admission Rules, 2018 that defined “Government School” and a new category was created “Government School Students”.  
• 5% of the seats were reserved for Government school students. 
• NEET-UG results were declared on 13th June 2023. Out of 89 unreserved seats for Government School students 77 were sent to the open category. 
• Aggrieved by the decision that the vacant seats were going to be released to the unreserved category, the writ petitions were filed in High Court where it was prayed that the meritorious students of reserved category who have studied in Government Schools must be allotted MBBS seats of unreserved category government school quota. 
• The Gwalior Bench of High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
• The matter ultimately came before the Supreme Court. 
• Thus, the writ petition was filed challenging the decision of the Department of Medical Education of not allotting MBBS Unreserved category quota seats to the meritorious reserved candidates. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that it is settled principle of law that  
  • a candidate belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories who on the basis of his own merit is entitled to be selected in the open or general category, will be selected against the general category and  
  • his selection would not be counted against the quota reserved for such vertical reservation categories. 
• The Court cited several precedents and held that the appellants who were meritorious and who could have been admitted against the unreserved category were denied admission on account of erroneous application of methodology in applying the horizontal and vertical reservation.  
• Thus, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the order of High Court and the petitioners were granted admission.

What is Reservation?

• Reservation is a form of positive discrimination, created to promote equality among marginalized sections, so as to protect them from social and historical injustice. 
• Generally, it means giving preferential treatment to marginalized sections of society in employment and access to education. 
• It was also originally developed to correct years of discrimination and to give a boost to disadvantaged groups. 
• In India, people have been historically discriminated on the basis of caste.

What are the Provisions Related to Reservations in Constitution of India, 1950 (COI)? 

• Part XVI of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) deals with reservation of SC and ST in Central and State legislatures. 
• Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the COI enabled the State and Central Governments to reserve seats in government services for the members of the SC and ST. 
• The Constitution was amended by the Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995 and a new clause (4A) was inserted in Article 16 to enable the government to provide reservation in promotion. 
• Later, clause (4A) was modified by the Constitution (85th Amendment) Act, 2001 to provide consequential seniority to SC and ST candidates promoted by giving reservation. 
• Constitutional 81st Amendment Act, 2000 inserted Article 16 (4 B) which enables the state to fill the unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for SCs/STs in the succeeding year, thereby nullifying the ceiling of fifty percent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year. 
• Article 330 and 332 of COI provides for specific representation through reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Parliament and in the State Legislative Assemblies respectively. 
• Article 243D provides reservation of seats for SCs and STs in every Panchayat. 
• Article 243T provides reservation of seats for SCs and STs in every Municipality. 
• Article 335 of the constitution says that the claims of STs and STs shall be taken into consideration constituently with the maintenance of efficacy of the administration. 

What are the Types of Reservations? 

• In the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that there are two types of reservations: 
  • Horizontal Reservations 
  • Vertical Reservations  
• Vertical Reservations 
  • They are the highest form of special provisions intended exclusively for members of backward classes SC, ST and OBC. 
  • The positions secured by members of these classes on the basis of their merit and are not counted against vertically reserved positions. 
  • They cannot exceed 50%. 
• Horizontal Reservations 
  • They are lesser form of special provisions and are intended for other disadvantaged citizens (like disabled, women etc). 
  • Adjustments through them cannot interfere with the seats vertically reserved for backward classes.

What are the Case Laws Explaining Applicability of Horizontal and Vertical Reservations? 

• Saurav Yadav and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2021) 
  • The Court in this case dealt with the issue of applicability of horizontal and vertical reservations. 
  • The Court in this case held that the procedure contemplated in the case of Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai v. Shital Amrutlal Nishar (2020) by the Gujarat High Court. 
  • In this case an illustration was taken where the horizontal reservation was given to women.  
  • The Court held that the first female candidate allocated in the vertical column for Scheduled Tribes may have secured higher position than the candidate in the unreserved category. 
  •  In that event said candidate must be shifted from the category of Scheduled Tribes to Open/General category causing a resultant vacancy in the vertical column of Scheduled Tribes. 
  • Such vacancy must then enure to the benefit of the candidate in the waiting list for Scheduled Tribes-Female. 
  • Further, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat in this case gave a concurring opinion and held that  
    • Reservations both horizontal and vertical are a method of ensuring representation in public services. 
    • These are not be seen as rigid silos where a candidate’s merit which otherwise entitles him or her to be shown in general category is foreclosed. 
    • Doing so would result in a communal reservation where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation thus negating merit.    
• Sadhana Singh Dangi and Others v. Pinki Asati and Others (2022) 
  • A 3- judge Bench of Supreme Court dealt with the issue of horizontal reservations.
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that the view taken by the Supreme Court in the above case is correct and must be given due regard. 
  • Thus, the Court held that the High Court failed to appreciate that conceptually there is no difference between vertical and horizontal reservations. 
  • When it comes to the basic idea the candidates belonging to reserved categories can very well stake a claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit entitles them to do so.