List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Bombay High Court has held that to constitute an offence of outraging the modesty of a woman the word “uttered” referred in law does not merely include the words spoken but also to the words written that are indented to insult a woman.  

What was the Background of Joseph Paul De Souza v. State of Maharashtra Case? 

• In the present case, the respondent and the petitioner used to live in the same society and got into an argument due to the petitioner’s interference with the business of the respondent. 
• Following the incident the petitioner sent the respondent mails which were derogatory and defamatory. 
• The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for outraging her modesty via mails sent by the petitioner on three consecutive events. 
• The respondent filed the complaint before Cyber Crime Investigation Cell alleging that the statements made by the petitioner in the mails are obscene, vulgar and of an overtly sexual nature that outrages her modesty and also Carbon Copied the same to the other member of the society. 
• The First Information Report (FIR) was also filed under Sections 354, 509 & 506 of  Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (I.T. Act). 
• The Trial Court proceedings were stayed. 
• The petitioner filed the Criminal Writ petition before the Bombay High Court and argued that  
  • His statements were not intended to outrage the respondent's modesty. 
  • There cannot be 2nd FIR on the same grounds. 
  • The relations between the petitioner and the respondent were never sound and due to personal grudges, the respondent filed the complaint against the petitioner. 
  • There was no obscenity in the content of mails delivered so he cannot be charged under Section 67 of IT Act. 

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bombay High Court observed that the FIR filed was in the consequence of the complaint registered before Cyber Cell and the preliminary enquiry conducted by the cell in the matter concerned. Hence, the FIR filed was not invalid. 
• The Bombay High Court observed the content of the mails and noted that in one of the emails the petitioner referred to the respondent as “Ms. Bonnie” which is a character of the film “Bonnie & Clyde” based on two criminals. 
• The Court further observed that the petitioner's intent was to insult the respondent and lower the respondent's image. 
•  The Bombay High Court made a broader interpretation of Section 509 of IPC where he stated that Section 509 of the I.P.C. has three components for establishing an offense 
  • The presence of an intention to insult the modesty of a woman. 
  • The manner in which this insult is perpetrated. 
  • An intrusion on her privacy.  
• The High Court observed that the manner of such intrusion is not restricted by an ‘utterance’ or ‘gesture’. It observed that the intrusion of privacy is not constituted merely by words spoken but also otherwise. 
• The court relied on the intent of the provisions to decide the matter and rejected the plea for quashing the charges and the FIR against the petitioner. 

What is Outraging the Modesty of Women? 

About: 

• When an act is done to insult the women, it is termed as outraging her modesty. 
• The act could be of any nature whether verbal or non-verbal the intent is to  
• It is a serious offence in India and has penal provisions for the same. 

What is Modesty? 

• 'Modesty' is not explicitly defined in the IPC but refers to womanly propriety, decency, and reserve in behavior, speech, and conduct. 
• A woman's modesty is intrinsically linked to her sex and femininity, regardless of age. 

What is Outraging Modesty? 

• Outraging modesty involves acts that are offensive, indecent, or degrading to a woman's sense of decency and morality. 
• It includes acts like inappropriate touching, forcible disrobing, indecent gestures or remarks with the intent to insult modesty. 

What are the Essential Ingredients? 

• Assault or use of criminal force against a woman. 
• Intention or knowledge that such acts are likely to outrage her modesty. 
• The presence of an intention to insult the modesty of a woman. 
• The manner in which this insult is perpetrated. 
• An intrusion on her privacy. 

What is the Difference between Rape and Modesty?

What are Case Laws Related to Outraging Modesty of Women? 

• State of Punjab v. Major Singh (1967): The ultimate test is whether the act is perceived as capable of shocking a woman's sense of decency. A woman possesses modesty by virtue of her sex from birth. The victim's age is irrelevant in determining outrage of modesty. 
• State of Kerala v. Hamsa (1988): Outraging modesty depends on the customs and habits of the society. Even gestures with such intention can attract Section 354 of IPC. 
• Ram Mehar v. State of Haryana (1998): Catching hold of a woman, taking her to an isolated place, and attempting to undress her amounts to outraging modesty. 
• Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (2006): Modesty is an attribute associated with women as a class. The culpable intention of the accused is crucial, not the victim's reaction. Even if the victim is unable to perceive the outrage (sleeping, minor, etc.), the offence is punishable. 

What are the Provisions for the Protection of Women’s Modesty under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS)? 

• Section 74: Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. 
  • Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine. 
• Section 79: Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman. 
  • Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object in any form, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.  

Internet and Crimes Against Women 

• Advent of modern technology has opened up wide spectrum of means to commit crimes against women. 
• There are several offences which occur on daily basis on internet such as creating obscene contents on the internet to outrage the modesty of women, or by disclosing the identity of victims of offences against women over the internet, by insulting women through commenting on the posts or by Direct messaging them, etc. 
• Modern technology makes the manner of perpetrating the offense verily real. 
• Physical advances may not be necessary in all cases the intention holds a key role. 
• The Courts have somehow tried to interpret the existing penal provisions as per the increasing crimes through the internet.

Source: Bombay High Court  

Why in News?

The Bombay High Court recently directed the Maharashtra government to establish a social media platform for reporting manual scavenging incidents. This initiative aims to assist District Level and Vigilance Committees in enforcing the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, ensuring effective action against manual scavenging practices. 

• Justices Nitin Jamdar and Milind Sathaye held in the matter of Shramik Janata Sangh v. State of Maharashtra. 

What was the Background of Shramik Janata Sangh v. State of Maharashtra? 

• The Shramik Janata Sangh filed a plea in the Bombay High Court for manual scavenging in Maharashtra. 
• The petition also sought proper compensation for the families of manual scavengers who died due to this practice. 
• The Maharashtra government, through its Nodal Officer (Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Pune), had previously claimed that all 36 districts in the state were free from manual scavenging. 
• This claim was based on certificates submitted to the Government of India by the Collectors of all 36 districts on 2nd August, 2023. 
• The petitioners disputed this claim, citing instances of manual scavenging occurring in April and August 2024 in some districts across the state. 
• The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, is the primary legislation governing this issue. 
• The petitioners also questioned why compensation was given in 81 cases if manual scavenging had been eradicated, as per state records. 
• The Act mandates the formation of District Level Committees and Vigilance Committees to ensure the prohibition of manual scavenging. 
• The National Human Rights Commission had raised queries regarding the death of certain manual scavengers in April 2024, which is relevant to the case. 
• The case involves the interpretation of the definition of "Manual Scavenger" as per Section 2(g) of the 2013 Act, in light of a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India. 
• The petition seeks to address the discrepancy between the state's claims of eradicating manual scavenging and the reported instances of its continuation. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court noted a discrepancy between the State's claim of eradicating manual scavenging and the petitioners' evidence of its continued occurrence, necessitating further inquiry into the current status of manual scavenging in Maharashtra. 
• The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the definition of "Manual Scavenger" as per Section 2(g) of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India & Ors.,(2023) 
• The Court observed that the certificates submitted by District Collectors declaring districts free of manual scavenging pertained to the position in 2023 and not the current situation, thus requiring a fresh inquiry into recent instances of manual scavenging. 
• The Court recognized the need for greater transparency and accessibility regarding the composition and functioning of the committees mandated under the 2013 Act, including State, District, and Vigilance Committees. 
• The Court observed that the creation of dedicated communication channels, such as email addresses and social media handles, could aid in reporting and addressing instances of manual scavenging more effectively. 
• The Court noted the importance of regular updates and proper documentation of actions taken by the committees under the 2013 Act to ensure ongoing efforts to eradicate manual scavenging. 

What is Manual Scavenging? 

• About 
  • Manual scavenging is defined as the practice of manually cleaning, carrying, disposing of, or otherwise handling human excreta from dry latrines, sewers, and other sanitation facilities. 
  • The practice involves the manual removal of human waste without proper protective equipment or sanitary tools, often using rudimentary implements such as buckets, brooms, and baskets. 
  • The engagement in manual scavenging frequently results in fatalities due to hazardous working conditions, particularly in the cleaning of manholes and sewers without adequate safety equipment. 
• Link with Caste System 
  • This is inseparably linked to the caste system in India, whereby individuals from certain socially marginalized communities have been traditionally relegated to this occupation. 
• Position in Law 
  • The practice of manual scavenging constitutes a severe violation of human dignity and fundamental rights provided in the Constitution of India. 
  • The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993, explicitly prohibited the practice of manual scavenging in India. 
  • The Act further reinforced the ban on manual scavenging and provided for the rehabilitation of individuals engaged in this practice. 
  • Despite legislative prohibitions, the manual scavenging practices constitute a contravention of existing laws and a failure to implement constitutional safeguards. 
  • The eradication of manual scavenging necessitates not only stringent law enforcement but also comprehensive socio-economic rehabilitation measures for affected individuals and communities. 

What are the Constitutional Safeguards for Manual Scavengers? 

Constitutional Provision: 

• The Constitution of India, under Article 14, guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all citizens, including manual scavengers. 
• Article 17 of the Constitution abolishes untouchability and prohibits its practice in any form, which is particularly relevant to manual scavengers who often face social discrimination. 
• The right to life and personal liberty, provided under Article 21 of the Constitution, extends to manual scavengers, protecting their dignity and livelihood. 
• Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits traffic in human beings and forced labor, which can be invoked to prevent the exploitation of manual scavengers. 

What is Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013? 

About: 

• This Act prohibits the employment or engagement of any person as a manual scavenger. 
• The Act of 2013 mandates the rehabilitation of identified manual scavengers, including provision of alternative employment, financial assistance, and other support measures. 
• Local authorities are legally obligated under the Act to conduct surveys to identify manual scavengers and insanitary latrines within their jurisdiction. 
• The Act establishes a comprehensive institutional mechanism, including Vigilance Committees and Monitoring Committees at various levels, to ensure effective implementation of its provisions. 
• The Act provides that the offenses are cognizable and non-bailable, emphasizing the seriousness of violations related to manual scavenging. 

Major Legal Provisions: 

• Section 5 prohibits the construction of insanitary latrines and the employment of manual scavengers, mandating the conversion or demolition of existing insanitary latrines. 
• Section 7 prohibits the engagement or employment of persons for hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks. 
• Section 11 and Section 14 require Municipalities and Panchayats to conduct surveys to identify manual scavengers in urban and rural areas respectively. 
• Section 13 and Section 16 provide the rehabilitation measures for identified manual scavengers, including provision of photo identity cards, one-time cash assistance, scholarships for children, housing, skill development training, and subsidy for alternative occupation. 
• Section 18 empowers the appropriate Government to confer powers and impose duties on local authorities and District Magistrates for the implementation of the Act. 
• Section 20 provides for the appointment of inspectors with powers to examine premises, conduct inspections, and collect evidence related to the employment of manual scavengers. 
• Section 22 makes offenses under this Act cognizable and non-bailable. 
• Section 24 and Section 26 provides the constitution of Vigilance Committees at district and sub-division levels, and a State Monitoring Committee respectively, to oversee the implementation of the Act. 
• Section 33 places a duty on local authorities to use modern technology for cleaning sewers and septic tanks to eliminate manual handling of excreta. 
• Section 36 empowers the appropriate Government to make rules for carrying out the Act's provisions. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the reservation provided to persons with disability was in the form of overall horizontal reservation and hence there was no need for a separate cut off.          

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Rekha Sharma v. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr. 

What is the Background of Rekha Sharma v. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Case? 

• The High Court of Rajasthan had issued an advertisement for the direct recruitment of 120 posts of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate under the Civil Judge Cadre. 
• Two appellants Rekha Sharma and Ratan Lal both having a permanent disability also applied for the post. 
• Both were declared unsuccessful in the Preliminary Examination. 
• The result provided cut off marks for every category except the cut off marks for the category of Persons with benchmark disabilities.  
• It was the case of the Appellants that their fundamental rights under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) was violated and that it was also violative of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (RJS Rules) read with Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018. 
• The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court. 
• Thus, appeal was filed in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court first of all analyzed the vacancies floated and observed that the number of seats reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities were 4 out of total 89 vacancies (for year 2020) and 1 out of total 31 vacancies (for year 2021). 
• The Court observed that the reservation in favor of Persons with Disabilities was an Overall Horizontal Reservation and was not Compartmentalized reservation. 
• The Court observed that the RJS Rules, 2010 do not make it mandatory for the respondents to declare a separate cut off marks for Persons with benchmark Disabilities.
• It was observed that the reservation for women (widow or divorcee) was compartmentalized reservation whereas the reservation for the persons with benchmark disabilities was overall reservation.
• Thus, the Court held that non fixation of separate cut off for persons with benchmark disabilities cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of any Fundamental Rights of the appellants.    

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 233T 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: 

• Vertical Reservations 
  • They are the highest form of special provisions intended exclusively for members of backward classes SC, ST and OBC. 
  • This is covered under Article 16 (4) of COI.  
  • They cannot exceed 50%. 
• Horizontal Reservations 
  • They are lesser form of special provisions and are intended for other disadvantaged citizens (like disabled, women etc). 
  • These are provided for under Article 16 (1) of COI. 
  • Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations.  
  • Types of Horizontal Reservation: 
  • Compartmentalized Horizontal Reservation 
    • In this type of reservation proportionate seats are reserved in each vertical reserved category. 
    • An example would be if the total number of vacancies are 89. In case of compartmentalized reservation they can be divided as follows:

• • Overall Horizontal Reservation 
    • Here the reservation is not specific to each vertical category. 
    • The reservation provided here is provided on the total posts advertised i.e. such reservation is not specific to each vertical category. 
    • An example would be if the total number of vacancies are 89 and out of the total seats 4 are reserved for Person with Disabilities, it would be overall Horizontal Reservation.

Which is a Landmark Case Law on Applicability of Overall and Compartmentalized Horizontal Reservations? 

• Anil Kumar Gupta and Others v. State of U.P. and Others (1995) 
  • The difference between overall and compartmentalized reservation is as follows: