List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of Abhijit Padale v. State of Maharashtra has held that the arrest cannot be made merely because of the allegation against a person it must be duly justifiable, and reasons of arrest must be recorded by the Police officers. 

What was the Background of the Abhijit Padale v. State of Maharashtra   Case? 

• In the present case, the petitioner is the journalist arrested under the charges of Sections 384 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on 16th January 2022. 
• The petitioner was produced before the court on the same day of arrest and produced before the Magistrate. 
• The Magistrate held that the arrest was not made in accordance with the issued guidelines and hence remanded him to the Magistrate’s custody. 
• The petitioner filed bail application but due to non-presence of public prosecutor the petitioner had to remain in custody till 18th January 2022. 
• The petitioner argued that the arrest made was illegal as it was not a serious offence and bailable and no reasons were recorded before arresting the Petitioner to justify his arrest which is clear violation of Section 41 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973(CrPC).  
• It was further argued by the petitioner that no notice under Section 41A of CrPC was served upon the Petitioner before arresting him.  
• Therefore, the Petitioner’s arrest, detention in Police custody and in jail for a total period of 3 days i.e., from 15th January, 2022 to 18th January, 2022 was not only unwarranted but also illegal. 
• The petitioner also argued that the arrest made by the Police is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution as the arrest was made to harass and torture the petitioner. 
• Therefore, the criminal writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court by the petitioner. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Bombay High Court observed that notice before arrest under Section 41A of CrPC has not been served on the petitioner and also he was not informed about the arrest and the reasons of arrest were not duly recorded by the petitioner. 
• The Bombay High Court further noted that the arrest made was in violation of the guidelines issued under Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr (2014). 
• The Bombay High Court also referred to the case of DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1996), the latin maxim 'salus populi est supreme lex' (the safety of the people is the supreme law) and salus republicae est suprema lex (safety of the state is the supreme law) goes hand in hand. 
• The Bombay High Court based on the above observations held the arrest of the petitioner legal and stated that the arrest made must be justifiable by the Police officers. 

What is Arrest? 

• Arrest means the deprivation of a person of his liberty by legal authority or by an apparent legal authority. 
• The provisions of the CrPC that deal with arrest range from Section 35 – 62 under Chapter V of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• Under BNSS arrest can be made by: 
  • Police Officer (Section 35) 
  • Private Person (Section 40) 
  • Magistrate (Section 41) 

What are Essential Conditions for Legal Arrest? 

• Where arrest is not required, notice must be compulsorily issued before arresting. 
• According to Section 36 of BNSS - Every police officer while making an arrest shall: 
  • Bear accurate, visible and clear identification of his name. 
  • Prepare memo of arrest, attested by at least one witness and countersigned by the arrested person. 
  • Inform person arrested his right to have a relative informed. 
• Police control rooms are to be established in every district and at the state level according to Section 37 of BNSS. 
• An arrested person is entitled to meet an advocate during interrogation, not throughout the interrogation as per Section 38 of BNSS. 
• A person arrested must be taken before the magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest as per Section 58 of BNSS. 

What is Illegal Arrest? 

About 

• When an arrest is made in such a manner that illegally detains a person and infringes its fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution. 
• The Arrest which is not made in accordance with the provisions of BNSS and where no reasonable reasons of arrest are recorded by the Police officer shall be held illegal arrest. 
• It is an act of unlawful restraining of a person which harms his dignity and personal liberty. 

Guidelines for Arrest Issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr  

• The Court issued certain guidelines under this case to prevent illegal arrest under the offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years: 
  • Police officers must comply with the provision of Section 41 of CrPC (now covered under Section 35 of BNSS). 
  • Police officers must issue notice before making an arrest as per section 41 A of CrPC (now covered under section 35 of BNSS). 
  • The reasons for arrest must be submitted before the magistrate at the time of production of the arrested person. 
  • The Magistrate shall duly undertake the reasons submitted by the Police officers before granting any decision. 
  • Magistrates authorizing detention without recording reasons will face departmental action by the appropriate High Court. 
  • Police officer may face departmental action and contempt of court if not complied with these issued guidelines. 

What are the Landmark Cases Related to Illegal Arrests?

• Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994): 
  • In this case guidelines were issued by the Supreme Court to make an arrest by the Police officer and it was stated that mere existence of power does not gives right to the police officer to arrest anyone without justifiable reasons.  
  • Existence of power and exercise of power are two different things and mere existence of power does not give right to exercise it without reasonable cause. 
• Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023):  
  • Supreme Court held that to give true meaning to constitutional and statutory mandates, “it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception”. 
• Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979): 
  • The Supreme Court held that every accused individual lacking the means to secure legal representation possesses a constitutional entitlement to receive free legal services from the State.  
  • The court further said that it is the constitutional duty of the State to provide a lawyer to such individuals if the demands of justice require it. Failure to offer free legal aid could lead to the trial being nullified for contravening Article 21. 
• State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952): 
  • The Supreme Court held that access to legal counsel is a fundamental right, and that the government is obligated to provide legal aid to those who cannot afford it.  
  • This decision proved pivotal in ensuring that everyone, irrespective of financial resources, could avail themselves of legal representation. 
• D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997): 
  • The Supreme Court issued guidelines for the arrest and detention of a person in this case which included the requirements that the arresting officer must inform the person of his/her right for legal representation and his right of informing to his relatives/ famil 
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014): 
  • Supreme Court of India ordered to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and magistrate do not authorize detention in such cases. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice PS Narsimha held that it is the duty of the Arbitral Tribunal and the Court alike without exception to examine the contract for it is the basis of the legal relationship.          

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Pam Developments Private Limited v. State of West Bengal & Anr.   

What is the Background of Pam Developments Private Limited v. State of  West Bengal & Anr. Case? 

• The respondent (State of West Bengal), invited tenders for building roads and the tender of Appellant was accepted. 
• There was a delay in work but it got completed. 
• The Appellant raised a bill amounting to Rs. 77,85,290 and seven other claims under different heads. 
• The respondent denied liability and hence the matter was referred to arbitration. 
• The Arbitrator gave an award on 30th January 2018. The AWard provided that the respondents are liable to the tune of Rs. 1,37,25,252 along with interest. 
• This award was challenged in the Court under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). 
• The challenge was allowed in part by the district judge who set aside the following claims: 
  • Claim no. 1: loss of business 
  • Claim no. 2: uneconomic utilisation of plant and machinery 
• Aggrieved by the decision of District Court an appeal was filed under Section 37 of A&C Act against the order setting aside the above claims in the High Court. 
• The Respondent filed a cross appeal seeking setting aside of rest of the claims as well. 
• The High Court of Calcutta under Section 37 of A&C Act set aside certain claims and restored the other. 
•  The Supreme Court in this case primarily dealt with the relief given with respect to the following three claims: 
  • Claim no. 3: Loss caused due to idle labour, machinery etc. 
  • Claim no. 4: Interest on delayed payment of running account bills 
  • Claim no. 6: Claim related to interest 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• With respect to Claim 3: 
  • The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct when it came to the conclusion that awarding any amount towards idle machinery etc is prohibited under the ‘Special Terms and Conditions’ of the contract.  
  • Thus, with respect to this claim the Court held that the conclusion drawn by the High Court was correct. 
• With respect Claim 4: 
  • The Court held that there was nothing perverse in the finding of the arbitral Tribunal with respect to this claim. 
  • Hence, the High Court was wrong in interfering with the arbitral tribunal on this count. 
• With Respect Claim 6: 
  • The Court here discussed the law on the power of the Arbitrator to grant interest at different stages of the suit under Section 31 (7) of A&C Act. 
  •  The Court held that under the 1996 Act the power of the arbitrator to grant interest is governed by Section 31 (7) of A&C Act.: 
    • The first part provides the Arbitrator can award interest for the period between the date of cause of action to the date of the award, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. 
    • The second part provides that unless the award directs otherwise, the sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall carry interest at the rate of 2% higher than the current rate of interest, from the date of the award to the date of payment. 
    • It was further held by the Court that the power of the Arbitrator to award pre-reference and pedente lite interest is not restricted when the agreement is silent on whether the interest can be awarded or does not contain a specific term that prohibits the same.  
• Hence, the Court held that the High Court was wrong in interfering with the the Arbitral award with respect to grant of pe-reference interest as the contract between the parties does not prohibit the same.   

What is Arbitral Tribunal?

• Section 2 (c) of the A&C Act provides that “arbitral tribunal” means an sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. 
• An arbitrator is a neutral third party that acts as a judge in arbitration proceedings. 
• Appointment of Arbitrators 
  • As per Section 11 (1) of A&C Act a person of any nationality can be an arbitrator. 
  • The parties are free to agree on the procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators 
  • If the parties cannot reach an agreement in an arbitration with three arbitrators: 
    • Each party shall appoint one arbitrator 
    • The two appointed shall appoint the third arbitrator who shall act as presiding arbitrator 
  • If the appointment as above is not possible the appointment shall be made at the request of the party by the Supreme Court or the High Court or any person or institution designated by the Court. 
  • In an arbitration of sole arbitrator if the parties fail to agree on the arbitrator within 30 days the appointment shall be made upon the request of the party by the Supreme Court or by the High Court or any person or institution designated for this purpose.

What are the Duties of Arbitral Tribunal? 

• Arbitrator should be independent and impartial 
  • For this purpose Fifth Schedule in the Act is provided. 
  • The grounds stated in Fifth Schedule shall guide in determining the circumstances that give rise to justifiable doubt as to independence and impartiality. 
  •  Thus, if such circumstances exist the arbitrator shall not be impartial. 
• Arbitrator has a duty to disclose 
  • As per Section 12 of the Act it is the duty of the arbitrator to disclose any circumstance: 
    • That would give justifiable doubt as to impartiality 
    • Likely to affect his ability to devote sufficient time and to complete arbitration in 12 months. 
  • Also, Explanation 2 provides that the disclosure shall be done in the manner specified in Sixth Schedule. 
• Arbitrator has a duty to effectively resolve the dispute 
  • It shall be the duty of the arbitrator to resolve the dispute effectively and speedily. 
  • Section 29A of the Act provides that the award in matters other than international commercial arbitration shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings. 
  • The proviso in this Section provides that in case of International Commercial Arbitration an endeavor shall be made to dispose of the matter within 12 months. 
• Arbitrator has a duty to interpret or correct the award 
  • Section 33 of the Act provides that there can be correction and interpretation of award. 
  • Within 30 days from the receipt of the arbitral award  
    • A party may request the arbitral tribunal to correct any clerical or typographical error 
    • A party may request the arbitral tribunal to give specific interpretation of a specific point or part of award.

What is the Power of an Arbitrator with Respect to Contract? 

• Bharat Cookng Coal Limited v. LK Ahuja (2004) 
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that when an award made by the arbitrator is one can be said to be made by a reasonable person no interference is called for. 
  • However, if the arbitrator exceeds the terms of agreement or passes an award in absence of any evidence, which is apparent on the face of the record the same could be set aside. 
• Steel Authority of India Limited v. JC Budharaja, Government and Mining Contractor (1999) 
  • The Court held that the arbitrator derives it’s authority from the contract and he acts in manifest disregard of the contract the award given by the arbitrator would be an arbitrary one. 
  • The Court held that the arbitrators must be careful in giving the award and should limit themselves to contractual terms.  
  • The function of the arbitrator is to act within the limits of the contract. 
• Mc Dermott International Inc v. Burn Standadrd Co. Ltd. (2006) 
  • Interpretation of the contract is the matter for arbitrator to determine, even if it gives rise to a determination of question of law. 
  • The arbitrator can take into consideration the following while determining the contract clauses: 
    • Nature of the contract 
    • Nature of the Arbitration Agreement 
    • Scope of Arbitration Agreement 
    • Conduct of the parties.

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court observed that employees performing duties like regular government staff should not be denied pensionary benefits solely due to their temporary status. Division Bench criticized the denial of such benefits which highlights that long-serving employees performing equivalent roles deserve the same protections and benefits as permanent government employees. 

• Justices Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta held in the matter of Rajkaran Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.      

What was the Background of Rajkaran Singh & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors? 

• The appellants were appointed to manage the Compulsory Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) Fund of the Special Frontier Force (SFF) in various positions such as Junior Accountant, Accountant, Upper Division Clerk, and Lower Division Clerk. 
  • The SSD Fund is a welfare initiative funded through personal contributions of SFF troops from their salaries. 
• The appellants received various allowances and benefits along with their salary as per the 4th and 5th Central Pay Commissions (CPC). 
• On 1^st January 2006, the Union of India implemented the 6th Central Pay Commission for all government employees of the SFF. 
• However, these 6th CPC benefits were not extended to the appellants (SSD employees). Instead, they were given an ad-hoc amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month. 
• The appellants made representations to the Union Government seeking extension of 6th CPC benefits, which were rejected. 
• Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellants filed applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking extension of 6th CPC benefits. 
• The CAT dismissed their applications, holding that they were not employed in government service and that their services were not statutory in nature. 
• The appellants challenged the CAT's decision before the High Court, which affirmed the CAT's order. 
• Following the High Court's dismissal, the appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India. 
• The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellants, despite being classified as temporary employees of a scheme managed by contributory pooling of funds, could claim entitlement to pensionary benefits in accordance with the 6th CPC. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court examined the issue under Article 12 of the Constitution, considering whether the Special Security Deposit (SSD) Fund managed by the appellants could be regarded as an instrumentality of the State. 
• The Court observed that the appellants' appointment on regular pay scales indicated a formalized employee-employer relationship akin to permanent government employees. 
• The Court noted the presence of governmental control over the appellants' employment terms, evidenced by increments and promotions comparable to other government employees. 
• The Court recognized that the provision of leave, Assured Career Progression (ACP), and other benefits reinforced the similarity between the appellants' employment conditions and those of regular government employees. 
• The Court held that the mere classification of employees as 'temporary' or 'permanent' is not merely nomenclature but carries significant legal implications in terms of service benefits and protections. 
• The Court concluded that the denial of pensionary benefits to the appellants was not tenable or justifiable in law, deeming it arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India,1950. 

What were the Cases Referred in Rajkaran Singh & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors? 

• Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 
  • The Court applied the tests laid down in to determine whether the entity in question could be considered an instrumentality or agency of the Government under Article 12. 
  • Upon application of these principles in present case, the Court found compelling evidence establishing that the appellants met the characteristics of regular government servants. 
• Vinod Kumar and Others v. Union of India (2024)   
  • The Court observed that the essence of employment cannot be determined solely by initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. 

What is State under Indian Constitution? 

• Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines State. 
• It provides that the State will includes the Government and Parliament of India, as well as the Government and Legislature of each state within India. 
• The term also includes all local authorities and other authorities within Indian territory or under the control of the Government of India. 
• "State" has been interpreted broadly by the courts to include not just traditional government bodies, but also agencies and instrumentalities of the government that perform public functions or are under pervasive government control. 
• In Rati Lal v. State of Bombay (1952), it was determined that the judiciary is not considered "State" for Article 12.  
  • However, in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) and N.S. Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966), it was noted that the judiciary is regarded as "State" when it exercises its rule-making authority, but it is not considered "State" when performing its judicial functions. 

What is Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)? 

About :

• CAT is a specialized judicial body established under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India and the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to adjudicate disputes related to recruitment and service conditions of public servants. 
• It has jurisdiction over service matters of employees of the Union government and other authorities under central government control. 
• The tribunal comprises a chairman (a sitting or retired High Court Judge) and both Administrative and Judicial Members, chosen for their expertise in relevant areas. 
• CAT operates through 17 regular Benches and 21 Circuit Benches across India, aiming to provide speedy and cost-effective justice to aggrieved public servants. 
• While not bound by Civil Procedure Code, CAT adheres to principles of natural justice in its proceedings and possesses contempt powers equivalent to a High Court. 
• The tribunal's independence is safeguarded by providing its Chairman and Members with service conditions comparable to High Court Judges. 
• Appeals against CAT orders can be made to the respective High Court via writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 

Legal Provision:

• Establishment of Administrative Tribunals ( Section 4) 
  • The Act provides for the establishment of the following Administrative Tribunals: 
    • Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by the Central Government 
    • State Administrative Tribunals by State Governments 
    • Joint Administrative Tribunals for two or more States 
  • The Central Government may apply provisions to local or other authorities and corporations owned/controlled by the Government. 
• Composition and Appointment (Section 5-6) 
  • Each Tribunal shall consist of a Chairman and other Judicial and Administrative Members as deemed fit by the appropriate Government. 
  • The Chairman must be or have been a Judge of a High Court. 
  • Administrative Members must have held the post of Secretary to Government of India or equivalent for at least 2 years. 
  • Judicial Members must be or be qualified to be a Judge of a High Court or have been a Secretary in the Legal Affairs Department for at least 2 years. 
  • The Chairman and Members are appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and Governor of concerned State(s). 
• Jurisdiction and Powers (Chapter III) 
  • The CAT has jurisdiction over: (Section 14) 
    • Recruitment and service matters concerning civil services/posts under the Union 
    • Service matters of All India Service officers 
    • Service matters of civilian defense employees 
  • State Administrative Tribunals have jurisdiction over: (Section 15) 
    • Recruitment and service matters concerning civil services/posts under the State 
    • Service matters of employees of State-controlled local authorities and corporations 
  • Tribunals have the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for: (Section 22) 
    • Summoning and enforcing attendance of persons 
    • Requiring discovery and production of documents 
    • Receiving evidence on affidavits 
    • Issuing commissions for examination of witnesses or documents 
    • Reviewing decisions 
    • Any other matter prescribed 
• Procedure and Appeals (Chapter IV, Section 19- section 27) 
  • Applications to be made within 1 year of the order causing grievance. 
  • Tribunals not bound by procedure in Civil Procedure Code but guided by principles of natural justice. 
  • Tribunals decide matters expeditiously, ordinarily on documents and written representations. 
  • Orders of Tribunals deemed to be executable as a decree of civil court. 
  • Appeals against orders of Tribunals lie to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
• Miscellaneous Provisions (Chapter V, Section 28- 37) 
  • Proceedings before Tribunals deemed to be judicial proceedings. 
  • Members and staff of Tribunals deemed to be public servants. 
  • Act to have overriding effect over other laws. 
  • Central Government empowered to make rules for carrying out provisions of the Act. 
  • Appropriate Government empowered to make rules on administrative matters of Tribunals.