List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement has held  

• that the statement of the accused which is incriminating would not amount as substantive evidence. 
• That statement of the co accused cannot be used to implicate the accused by the Investigating agencies. 

What was the Background of the Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement Case? 

• In the present case, The Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR)was registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 447, 504, 506, 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) where the appellate was not names as accused. 
• In view of Section 420 and 467 of IPC, being Scheduled Offences, investigation under the PMLA was initiated Even here the appellant was not named though the ECIR did mention certain unknown persons being involved. 
• The Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigated the offence. 
• The allegation was that accused Rajesh Rai illegally and fraudulently made a Power of Attorney in the name of Imtiaz Ahmad and accused Bharat Prasad and on the basis of said Power of Attorney prepared a forged sale deed and sold the land to accused Punit Bhargava, an accomplice of the appellant. 
• It is further alleged that the said land was transferred by accused Punit Bhargava to accused Bishnu Kumar Agarwal vide two sale deeds. 
• It was alleged by the co accused that the appellant, with the help of another accused person Chhavi Ranjan, by influencing the circle officials got the land mutated and hence, according to the prosecution, the role of the appellant is pivotal. 
• The appellant stated that 
  • He knew Bishnu Kumar Agarwal and has met him during Marriage Events. 
  • Punit Bhargava, co accused was like his younger brother who hailed from his native place, and he had known him since childhood.  
  • Persons including Afshar Ali used to visit him for the Cheshire Home property and he introduced him to Rajdeep Kumar and got the property verified.  
  • With the consent of Punit Bhargava, he got the property registered in the name of Punit Bhargava and later it was sold to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal at Rs. 1.78 crore.  
• The co accused, Afshar Ali stated that  
  • He met with the appellant, and he was informed about the disputes and the vigilance of the Police. 
  • The appellant took stock of the status of the land and called the then Deputy Commissioner - Chhavi Ranjan and told him that the registry of the Cheshire Home property was to be done after removing the vigilance observed by the Police.  
  • Thereafter, the appellant fixed the consideration of Rs. 1.5 crores and after accepting the consideration as fixed, he requested the appellant to arrange for unblocking the two plots of land, which were blocked by the Deputy Commissioner Office.  
  • The appellant demanded Rs. 1 crore for the above work and the amount was adjusted in the said consideration and that it was appellant who asked to do the registration in the name of Punit Bhargava.  
  • It was the appellant who fixed the deal with Bishnu Kumar Agarwal. 
• The respondent argued that the statement made by the co accused is substantive evidence against the appellant. 
• The appellant was taken into custody on 11th August 2023. He was already in custody from 25th August 2022. 
• The appellant argued that due to examination of various witnesses he was not granted bail which violates his fundamental rights. 
• Appellant's bail application was rejected by the Special Judge and the High Court.  
• Aggrieved, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that provisions of Section 45 of PMLA which states two conditions to grant bail. 
  • This provision is not an exception to the general rule of bail, it provides twin conditions to be followed before granting bail. 
  • The Supreme Court highlighted the general rule that “Bail is the Rule and Jail is an exception”. 
• The Supreme Court also added that  
  • When an accused is in custody under PMLA irrespective of the case for which he is under custody, any statement under Section 50 PMLA to the same Investigating Agency is inadmissible against the maker. 
  • The statement of the appellant as summarized, taken as it is does not prima facie make out a case of money laundering against him. It also does not point to the involvement of the appellant prima facie in the forgery.   
  • The statement of the co accused against the appellant assuming there is anything incriminating against the appellant will not have the character of substantive evidence.  
  • The prosecution cannot start with such a statement to establish its case.  
  • The Court held that, in such a situation, the law laid down under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) while dealing with the confession of the co-accused will continue to apply. 
• The supreme Court noted that the statement of the co accused, Afshar Ali does not prima facie indicate anything about the role of the appellant in the forgery of sale deed and other documents or being involved in the offence of money laundering. 
• Therefore, The Supreme Court held that 
  • The statement of the appellant in other investigation cannot be used in the present case under Section 50 of PMLA. 
  • The statement of the appellant if to be considered as incriminating against the maker, will be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act since he has given the statement in judicial custody, pursuant to another proceeding instituted by the same Investigating Agency. 
  • The statement of the co accused, Afshar Ali’s the Investigating Agency will have to first marshal the other evidence to make it substantive evidence. 
  • The accused in the present case has completed the twin condition given under Section 45 of PMLA. 
• The Supreme Court therefore accepted the petition of the appellant and granted bail. 

What were the Cases Referred in the Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement Case? 

• Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952): 
  • Where the court held that “The proper way to approach a case of this kind is, first, to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based on it.  
  • If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of course it is not necessary to call the confession in aid.” 
• Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors (2022): 
  • Where it was held that if the statement is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official, the consequences of Article 20(3) or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play to urge that the same being in the nature of confession, shall not be proved against accused. 

What is Substantive Evidence? 

About 

• Evidence is defined under Section 2(e) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA) as: 
  • All statements including statements given electronically which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry and such statements are called oral evidence. 
  • All documents including electronic or digital records produced for the inspection of the Court and such documents are called documentary evidence. 
• Substantive Evidence:  
  • Evidence which requires no corroboration to prove or disprove the facts in issue is substantive evidence. 
  • This evidence holds enough weight by itself and requires no further inspection. 
  • This could be both circumstantial and direct. 

Evidence held as Substantive Evidence 

• Witness testimony to be considered as substantive evidence based on case-to-case basis. [Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Punjab (1952)]. 
• Admissions are to be considered as substantive evidence. [Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad (1974)]. 
• Photographic evidence or recordings whose reliability is established are considered as substantive evidence. [N. Sri Rama Reddy v. Sh. V. V. Giri in Reference to a Tape (2014)]. 
• Forensic reports are considered as substantive evidence on case-to-case bases.  [Nitish Kumar Murder Case] 
• Expert testimony is considered as substantive evidence that has reasonable backing. [Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (2012)] 
• Direct evidence is substantive evidence. [Awadh Behari Sharma v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (1956)] 
• Circumstantial evidence directly indicates the commission of the crime is substantive. [Ashok Kumar v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh (1990)]

Source: Bombay High Court  

Why in News? 

The Bombay High Court in Goa ruled that a child cannot be denied Indian citizenship or a passport simply because they live with a single parent who is a foreign national. The court found that the child's Indian citizenship, acquired by birth, remains valid despite the parent’s change in nationality. This decision overturned the Indian High Commission's refusal to renew the child's passport. 

• Justices Makarand Karnik and Justices Valmiki SA Menezes held in  Chrisella Valanka Kushi Raj Naidu v. Ministry of External Affairs . 

What was the Background of Chrisella Valanka Kushi Raj Naidu v. Ministry of External Affairs ? 

• The petitioner, Chrisella Valanka Kushi Raj Naidu, was born in Goa, India on 27th October 2007, to Indian citizen parents. 
• When the petitioner was about 3 years old, her father abandoned her and her mother. 
• The petitioner's mother filed for divorce, which was granted by a court order in 2019. 
• In 2015, the petitioner's mother registered her birth in Portugal and acquired Portuguese citizenship due to employment opportunities abroad. 
• The petitioner and her mother moved to the United Kingdom, where the mother worked and the petitioner attended school. 
• The petitioner was issued an Indian passport in 2014, valid until 2nd December, 2019. 
• In 2019, the petitioner's mother applied for renewal of the petitioner's Indian passport with the Indian High Commission in the UK. 
• On 5^th August 2020, the Indian High Commission refused to renew the passport, stating that the petitioner was not eligible as she was a single-parent minor child with physical custody granted to a parent who is a foreign national. 
• The petitioner, through her mother as natural guardian, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the Indian High Commission's decision. 
• The case raised questions about the citizenship status of a minor child born in India to Indian parents, where one parent later acquired foreign citizenship and has sole custody of the child. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court held that under Section 3(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the petitioner acquired Indian citizenship by birth, as she was born in India after the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, to parents who were Indian citizens at the time of her birth. 
• The bench observed that the petitioner's Indian citizenship has not been terminated or ceased under Sections 8, 9, or 10 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and mere custody with a parent who has acquired foreign citizenship does not lead to termination of the child's Indian citizenship. 
• The court noted that Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, which deals with termination of citizenship due to voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship, does not contain any provision for termination of citizenship of minors whose parents have acquired foreign citizenship. 
• The bench found that the Office Memorandum dated 31st July, 2024, relied upon by the respondents, actually supports the petitioner's case, as it clarifies that the citizenship of minor children is not affected if a parent voluntarily acquires citizenship of another country. 
• The court held that the Passport Officer's refusal to issue a passport was not sustainable under Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, as none of the specified grounds for refusal were applicable in the petitioner's case. 
• The judges emphasized that a child cannot be rendered stateless, and the acquisition of foreign nationality by the petitioner's mother does not affect the citizenship status of the petitioner who acquired Indian citizenship by birth. 

What are the Constitutional Provisions Concerning Citizenship in India? 

About: 

• Part II of the Constitution of India,1950 comprising Articles 5-11, governs the concept of citizenship. 
• The Parliament of India has exclusive authority over citizenship matters, as it falls under the Union List in the Seventh Schedule. 
• The constitutional provisions on citizenship primarily identify persons who became citizens of India at the commencement of the Constitution on 26^th January , 1950. 
• The Constitution does not provide comprehensive or permanent provisions regarding the acquisition or loss of citizenship subsequent to its commencement. 
• Article 11 states the Parliament to enact legislation to regulate citizenship matters not explicitly covered in the Constitution. 
• Pursuant to this constitutional mandate, the Parliament enacted the Citizenship Act, 1955, which has been subject to amendments over time. 
• The Citizenship Act, 1955, and its subsequent amendments, provide the legal framework for matters relating to the acquisition, termination, and regulation of Indian citizenship. 
• The constitutional provisions on citizenship are not exhaustive and rely on parliamentary legislation for comprehensive citizenship laws. 

Legal Provision

What is the Citizenship Act, 1955? 

About: 

• Citizenship rights in India were established upon the nation's independence in 1947. 
• Prior to independence, the British rule did not confer citizenship rights to Indians. 
• The British Citizenship and Alien Rights Act of 1914, applicable during the pre-independence era, was repealed in 1948. 
• Under the British Nationality Act, Indians were classified as British subjects without citizenship rights. 
• The partition of India in 1947 led to significant population movements across the newly established borders between India and Pakistan. 
• Individuals were granted the right to choose their country of residence and acquire citizenship thereof. 
• The Constituent Assembly of India, considering these circumstances, limited the scope of citizenship provisions in the Constitution to address the immediate need of determining citizenship status for migrants. 
• The Citizenship Act, enacted by Parliament in 1955, established specific provisions for citizenship requirements and eligibility. 
• The Citizenship Act, 1955 governs the acquisition and termination of citizenship after the commencement of the Constitution. 
• Initially, the Citizenship Act, 1955 included provisions for Commonwealth Citizenship. 
• The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 repealed the provisions related to Commonwealth Citizenship from the original Citizenship Act, 1955. 
• The Citizenship Act of 1955 prescribes five ways of acquiring citizenship, viz, birth, descent, registration, naturalisation and incorporation of territory. 
• The Act does not provide for dual citizenship or dual nationality.  
• It only allows citizenship for a person listed under the provisions above ie: by birth, descent, registration, naturalisation and territorial incorporation.  
• The act has been amended four times in 1986, 1992, 2003, 2005, 2015 and 2019. Through these amendments, Parliament narrowed down the wider and universal principles of citizenship based on birth.  
• Moreover, the Foreigners Act places a heavy burden on the individual to prove that he/she is not a foreigner. 

Acquistion of Indian Citizenship

• By Birth  
  • Section 3 deals with who is considered a citizen of India by birth: 
    • Anyone born in India between January 26, 1950 and July 1, 1987 
    • Anyone born in India between July 1, 1987 and December 3, 2004, if at least one parent was an Indian citizen 
    • Anyone born in India on or after December 3, 2004, if both parents are Indian citizens or one parent is an Indian citizen and the other is not an illegal migrant 
• By Descent : 
  • Section 4 covers citizenship by descent: 
  • A person born outside India on or after January 26, 1950 can be a citizen by descent if their father was an Indian citizen at the time of birth 
  • For those born on or after December 10, 1992, either parent being an Indian citizen is sufficient 
• By Registration: 
  • Section 5 allows for citizenship by registration for certain categories of people, including those of Indian origin, spouses of Indian citizens, and minor children of Indian citizens. 
• By Naturalisation: 
  • Section 6 provides for citizenship by naturalization for foreigners who have resided in India for 12 years. 
  • Section 6A contains special provisions for citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord. 
  • Section 6B (added in 2019) provides a path to citizenship for certain persecuted minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who entered India before December 31, 2014. 
• By Incorporation of Territory 
  • If the country adds an extra territory under its sovereignty, then the people of that nation will become citizens of India.   
  • India succeeded the territory of Goa and Daman & Diu from Portuguese hence, anyone who or one of whose parents/grandparents was born before the 20th December 1961, in the territories now comprised in the union territory of Goa, Daman, and Diu, shall be deemed to have become a citizen of India on that day under Goa, Daman, and Diu (Citizenship) Order, 1962.   
  • Sections 7A-7D cover Overseas Citizenship of India, including eligibility, rights, and cancellation provisions. 

How Indian Citizenship Can be Revoked?  

• Renunciation of Citizenship 
  • Section 8 allows for voluntary renunciation of Indian citizenship. 
  • An individual who renounces their Indian citizenship for the purpose of acquiring citizenship of another country shall cease to be a citizen of India.  
  • Upon the renunciation of citizenship by a father, his minor children shall also lose their Indian citizenship.  
  • A minor child who has lost Indian citizenship under these circumstances may reclaim said citizenship within one year of attaining majority. 
• Termination of Citizenship 
  • Section 9 states that Indian citizenship is automatically terminated upon acquiring citizenship of another country. 
  • The Government of India is vested with the authority to terminate the citizenship of any Indian citizen who voluntarily acquires citizenship of a foreign country.  
  • Bhagwati Prasad v. Rajeev Gandhi (1986) 
    • The court held that the power to adjudicate issues pertaining to Section 9 of the Act is vested in the Central Government, not the High Court. 
  • The ratio decidendi established in Bhagwati Prasad v. Rajeev Gandhi (1986) was subsequently affirmed in Madhya Pradesh v. Peer Mohd. & Anr. (1963) and Hari Shankar v. Sonia Gandhi (2001) with respect to the interpretation and application of Section 9 of the Act. 
• Deprivation of Citizenship  
  • Section 10 states conditions under which the government can deprive a person of Indian citizenship. 
  • The Government of India is empowered to deprive any person of their Indian citizenship if said citizenship was obtained through:  
    • Registration;  
    • Naturalization; or 
    • Application of Article 5(c) of the Constitution of India.  
  • Article 5(c) of the Constitution of India pertains to citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution for individuals domiciled in India who have been ordinarily resident in India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement. 

What are the Amendments made in Citizenship Law?