List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice AG Masih deleted the bail condition providing that the bail condition shall be executed after six months.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Jitendra Paswan v. The State of Bihar.  

What is the Background of Jitendra Paswan v. The State of Bihar Case? 

• The Applicant was implicated in this case under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).   
• There was a bail granted by the Patna High Court which provided the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail. 
• However, the High Court observed that the order granting bail will become operative only after 6 months. 
• There was an appeal filed against this order.  

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court held that the High Court has strangely held that the order granting bail will become operative only after six months.  
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and deleted the words “but after 6 months from today”. 
• Thus, the Court concluded that once an accused is entitled to bail the bail cannot be delayed and doing so would violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What is Bail?

About

• Bail, a legal provision within the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) facilitates release from prison pending trial or appeal upon depositing security. 
• Bailable offences guarantee the right to bail, as per Section 436 of the CrPC, while non-bailable offences grant discretion to courts or designated police officers, as outlined in Section 437. 
• Justice V R Krishna Iyer in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) held that the basic rule is bail, not jail. It referred to a concept which is ‘Bail is a Right and Jail is an exception”.

Types of Bail:

• Regular Bail: It is a direction given by the Court (any Court within the country) to release a person who is already under arrest and kept in police custody. 
• Interim Bail: Bail granted for a temporary and short period by the Court till the application seeking Anticipatory Bail or Regular Bail is pending before a Court.  
• Anticipatory Bail: It is a legal provision that allows an accused person to apply for bail before being arrested. In India, pre-arrest bail is granted under section 438 of the CrPC It is issued only by the Sessions Court and High Court.

What are the Provisions concerning Bail under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)? 

• Chapter 35 of BNSS provides for provisions as to Bail and Bonds.

What are the Conditions that can be Imposed while Granting Bail? 

• Section 437 (3) of CrPC casts an imperative duty on the Court to impose certain conditions on the accused before granting bail. These are: 
  • The accused shall attend court in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him. 
  • The accused shall not commit any other offence of a similar nature. 
  • The accused shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of the case 
  • The accused shall not tamper with the evidence of the case. 
• This provision is reiterated in Section 480 (3) of BNSS.

What are the Case Laws on Conditions that can be Imposed while Granting Bail? 

• Munish Bhasin & Others v. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) (2009):  
  • The Court held that the conditions that are onerous and not justified should not be imposed. 
  • In this case the Court held that the condition of paying maintenance of Rs. 12,500 per month to the wife while granting bail under Section 498A of IPC is onerous and hence should be set aside. 
• Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013):  
  • The Court interpreted the term “any condition” on the grant of bail. 
  • The Court held that the words “any condition” should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on the Court to impose any condition it chooses to impose. 
  • Any condition that has to be imposed as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail.  
• Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018):  
  • The conditions for the grant of bail should not be so strict that it becomes incapable of compliance thereby making the grant of bail illusory. 
• Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan (2023): 
  • The Supreme Court in this case set aside the order of Rajasthan High Court imposing strict fine of Rs. 1,00,000 along with surety of Rs. 100,000 and two bail bonds of Rs. 50,000 each. 
  • The Supreme Court held that these conditions are excessive and acted as a refusal to grant bail. 
• Aparna Bhatt v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021): 
  • The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in which bail was granted on the condition that he will tie rakhi to the victim. 
  • The Supreme Court observed that the bail conditions should avoid personal contact between the accused and the victim. 
  • The Court held that the condition should avoid stereotypical remarks.

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of The Sinha Development Trust and Another v. State of UP and 15 Others has held that Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) inserted through amendment in 2002, would not be applicable to the suits, which are pending prior to the date of amendment. 

What was the Background of the Sinha Development Trust and Another v. State of UP and 15 Others Case? 

• In the present case, the dispute was related to the transfer of land in the name of trust and not in the name of the private person. 
• The petitioner presented a formal amendment application in the final stage to transfer the property in the name of the trust and not in the individual’s name. 
• The application was rejected by the Trial Court at the final stage on the grounds that it was filed at a very late stage. 
• The petitioner challenged the order of the Trial Court before the Allahabad High Court. 
• The petitioner argued that the amendment of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC did not apply on the cases filed before the amendment, 2000 by referring to the case of State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council (2007). 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Allahabad High Court observed that the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council (2007) held that the amendment of 2000 of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC shall not be applicable to the cases pending before the amendment. 
• Based on the above judgement the Allahabad High Court set aside the order of the trial court and allowed the petitioner to make the necessary amendments to the plaint. 

What is Order VI Rule 17 of CPC? 

About: 

• Order VI of CPC deals with pleading in general. 
• Pleading shall mean plaint or written statement.

Pleadings

• Pleadings are statements in writing delivered by each party alternately to his opponent, stating his contentions at the trial, giving all such details as his opponent needs to know to prepare his case in answer. 
• It is an essential requirement of pleading that material fact and necessary particulars must be stated in the pleadings and the decisions cannot be based on the grounds outside the pleadings.

Rule 17:

• This rule deals with the amendment of pleadings. 
• It states that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 
• Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial 
• The object of Rule 17 is to minimize the litigation, minimize the delay and to avoid multiplicity of suits.

Amendment of Rule 17: 

• An amendment of pleading under CPC can be performed under Order VI Rule 17.
• The first part of the rule gives discretionary power to the court by stating it ‘may’ allow an application for amendment to determine the real question in the dispute.
• The second part makes it mandatory for the court to allow the application if it finds that the parties could not have raised the issue despite due diligence before the trial began.
• The second part as proviso was added to Order VI Rule 17 was added in year 2002.

What are the Cases Based on Applicability of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC?

• Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India & Ors. (2005):
  • The Supreme Court has held that the object of adding the proviso is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial.
• Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons (2009):
  • The Supreme Court laid down the following basic principles for allowing or rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 17:
    • The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money.  
    • Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation.
    • Generally, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the application date.
• Prakash Kodwani v. Smt. Vimla Devi Lakhwani & Ors (2023): 
  • Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that as per the provisions of Rule 17 of Order VI of the CPC only pleadings proposed should be considered in the amendment application and not the merits of the proposed amendment.
• Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Swastik Associates & Ors. (2023): 
  • The Court observed that “It cannot be said that the rigors introduced in procedural law i.e., the CPC as per the Commercial Courts Act can be ignored because Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has not been amended in the context of commercial suits”.
  • The Court further noted that “An application, which in pith and substance is an application relatable to Order XI of the CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, can masquerade as an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC”.

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court recently highlighted a case where the Family Court granted a divorce decree to a husband who was solely responsible for the marital breakdown. Despite the wife's appeal challenging the reduction of permanent alimony from Rs. 25 lakhs to Rs. 20 lakhs by the High Court, the Supreme Court emphasized that the husband should not benefit from the dissolution of the marriage he caused. 

• The Court noted that a marriage's breakdown cannot be used advantageously by the party responsible for it. 
• Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held in the matter of Prabhavathi@ Prabhamani v. Lakshmeesha M.C. 

What was the Background of Prabhavathi@ Prabhamani v. Lakshmeesha M.C Case? 

• The parties in this case were married on 10th November 1991. 
• A son was born from their marriage on 20th August 1992. 
• The husband allegedly deserted the wife shortly after the child's birth in 1992. 
• In 2002, the husband filed a petition seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty. 
• The Family Court granted a divorce decree on 3rd August 2006. 
•  The wife appealed this decision, and the High Court set aside the decree on 26th August 2010, remanding the case to the Family Court. 
• The Family Court again granted a divorce decree on 21st February 2011, this time on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. 
• The wife appealed this second decree, and the High Court set it aside on 29th November 2013, remanding the case back to the Family Court. 
• On 12th February 2016, the Family Court granted a third divorce decree, this time with a provision for permanent alimony of Rs. 2500,000 (twenty-five lakhs) to be paid to the wife. 
• The wife challenged this third decree before the High Court. 
• The High Court dismissed her appeal and further reduced the permanent alimony to Rs. 20,00,000 (twenty lakhs), despite no appeal being filed by the husband challenging the alimony amount. 
• The wife subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. 
• Throughout this period, the husband allegedly did not provide financial support for his son's education or future. 
• The husband's mother has been staying with the wife and has supported her position against her son (the husband). 
• The parties have been living separately since approximately 1992. 

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court stated that the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be used to the advantage of a party who is solely responsible for damaging the marital relationship. 
• The Court noted that the respondent (husband) had subjected the appellant to extreme cruelty over the years. 
• It was observed that the respondent never came forward to assist in securing a better future for his son or offered to pay for his education. 
• The Court criticized the mechanical manner in which the Family Court repeatedly passed divorce decrees against the appellant. 
• The Court suggested that the Family Court's actions exhibited a lack of sensitivity and potentially indicated a hidden prejudice against the appellant. 
• The Court opined that lower courts should not have accorded any premium to the respondent's own misdemeanors. 

What is the Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage? 

• The irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a situation in which the husband and wife have been living separately for a considerable period and there is absolutely no chance of them living together again.   
• It means a marriage has no scope to be reconciled and if reconciled and divorce not granted then it will amount to cruelty. 
• Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not explicitly recognized as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act,1955(HMA). 
• This concept was originated in New Zealand in 1921 through the historical decision in Lodder v. Lodde.   
• The concept was first acknowledged by the Supreme Court in Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984) suggesting that divorce may be granted when a marriage has broken down beyond repair. 
• However, subsequent cases like Amarendra N. Chatterjee v. Smt. Kalpana Chatterjee (2022) clarified that courts cannot grant divorce solely on this ground due to lack of statutory provision. 
•  In Apurba Mohan Ghosh v. Manashi Ghosh (1988) the court held that relief can only be granted on statutory grounds mentioned in the Act, as per Section 23. 
•  V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1993) affirmed that irretrievable breakdown alone is not a ground for divorce but may be considered when scrutinizing evidence for statutory grounds. 
•  The Law Commission has proposed including irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce, but the legislature has not adopted this recommendation. 
•  In Ms. Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra (1985) the Supreme Court recommended comprehensive reform of marriage laws, including introducing irretrievable breakdown as a divorce ground. 
• Justice V.R Krishna Iyer explained the concept as recognizing the factual breakdown of a marriage when incompatibility becomes insurmountable. 
• Currently, courts may consider irretrievable breakdown as a factor but cannot grant divorce solely on this basis without meeting other statutory requirements. 

What is Irretrievable Breakdown Theory? 

• An irretrievable breakdown of marriage is defined as a failure in the matrimonial relationship where no reasonable probability remains for the spouses to live together as husband and wife. 
• There is currently no explicit legislative provision in India relating to this theory of divorce. 
• The Supreme Court has evolved grounds for granting divorce based on irretrievable breakdown, considering factors such as: 
  • Duration of cohabitation 
  • Time since last cohabitation 
  • Allegations made by parties against each other 
  • Orders passed in legal proceedings between the parties 
  • Attempts made for dispute settlement by family 
  • Separation period exceeding 6 years 
• The Law Commission of India, in its 71st report (1978) and a 2009 report, recommended adding irretrievable breakdown as an additional ground for divorce. 
• New Zealand pioneered this concept in 1920, allowing divorce petitions based on a three-year or more separation agreement. 
• The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (HMA) currently does not recognize irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce. 
• Under the HMA, divorce by mutual consent requires a joint petition, a one-year separation period, and a mandatory six-month waiting period between two motions. 
• The theory posits that when a marital relationship deteriorates beyond reconciliation, the marriage should be terminated. 
  • It argues that maintaining shared rights and responsibilities is unjustified when a marriage cannot endure. 

What is the Legal Provision of the Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage? 

• The principle has gained informal validity through its application in several judicial decisions granting divorce. 
• While not yet incorporated into the Hindu Marriage Act, it has been strongly recommended by various Law Commission Reports. 
• The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 was presented in Parliament, aiming to formally introduce this ground for divorce. 
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 empowers the Supreme Court to grant divorce on this ground using its discretionary powers. 
  • Under Article 142, the Supreme Court can consider factors such as reason for separation, duration of separation, and other relevant circumstances when granting divorce on this ground. 
  • Article 142(1) allows the Supreme Court to pass decrees or make orders necessary for doing 'complete justice' in any cause or matter. 
  • The exercise of power under Article 142(1) must be based on fundamental general and specific public policy considerations. 
• The application of this principle must align with fundamental rights, secularism, federalism, and other basic features of the Constitution. 
• The concept can be applied if there is no express pre-eminent prohibition in any substantive law against it. 
• While not statutory grounds, courts have interpreted existing grounds for divorce in light of irretrievable breakdown in certain cases.