List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Chandra Babu @ Babu v. State of Kerala & Another has held that: 

• Presumption until proven guilty is not merely a legal right but is a fundamental human right of a person. 
• The Courts must stick to the right of personal liberty and the standards of reasonableness guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India (COI). 

What was the Background Chandra Babu @ Babu v. State of Kerala & Another of the Case? 

• In the present case, there were four accused out of which one died during the pendency of case (Appellants).  
• The prosecution witness was the brother of the victim who died due to alleged attacks by the appellants. 
• It was contented by the prosecution before the Sessions Court that the accused attacked the deceased victim by stabbing him in the abdomen which caused his death. 
• The Sessions Court, based on the statements given by the witness and other relevant evidence, found the accused guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) and sentenced them to life imprisonment. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Sessions Court, the accused appealed before the Kerala High Court. 
• The accused stated that the witness’s statement had discrepancies and the evidence regarding recovery of murder weapon was also not reliable. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court stated that the prosecution failed to establish the crime as there were no traces of blood found at the alleged crime scene. 
• The Court also observed that there were discrepancies in the evidence presented by the prosecution and the appellants succeeded in creating reasonable doubt. 
• It was further added by the High Court that the prosecution had not presented enough material before the court and the material presented was distorted. 
• The court also added that the prosecution case has many discrepancies, and the investigating agency has failed to investigate and establish the crime. 
• The Court held that the case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not merely based on suspicious circumstances. 
• The Kerala High Court, therefore, accepted the accused's appeal and set aside the Sessions Court order. 

What is the Presumption of Innocence? 

About:

• During the criminal proceedings both the parties are to be treated equally to meet the ends of justice. 
• Negliegent in such cases may lead to miscarriage of justice. 
• The accused has the right to be treated as innocent until his guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 
• The Burden of proving the facts always lies on the person asserting it as explicitly given under Section 101 and Section 102 of the Indian Evidence act, 1872. (now covered under Section 104 and Section 105 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adiniyam, 2023) 
• The Presumption of innocence doesn’t shift the burden on the prosecution, but it states that the burden begins with the prosecution only. 

Importance of Presumption of Innocence:  

• The principle of presumption of innocence is not merely a right but principle for the state to exercise its coercive powers. 
• The principle of presumption safeguards the right of the individual against wrong convictions. 
• The right of fair trial is the key for bringing the right to presume innocent until proven guilty. 
• It obliges the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the offence which has been charged against the accused. 
• Anything contrary to the principle of presumption of innocence would be against justice and will result in miscarriage of justice. 
• Presumption of Innocence is a human right which cannot be neglected. 
• Article 14 and Article 21 of the COI incorporate this principle which makes it a fundamental right. 

What are the Cases Based on Presumption of Innocence? 

• Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973):  
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that a person cannot be held guilty unless proven beyond reasonable doubt. 
  • Proving beyond reasonable doubt means unless the prosecution succeeds in rebutting the contentions presented by the accused with reliable evidences he cannot be held guilty. 
• KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962):  
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that the general principle is presumption of innocence. 
  • The burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that an award by the Lok Adalat can be assailed only if the same is passed without jurisdiction or is obtained through impersonation or playing fraud with the Court.      

• The Rajasthan High Court held this in the case of Virendra Singh v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation.  

What was the Background of Virendra Singh v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Case? 

• Virendra Singh was appointed to the post of conductor on compassionate grounds on probation for a period of two years. 
• His services were terminated on 26th December 2014 on the ground that certain passengers were found travelling without ticket at the time of inspection despite that fact though the requisite amount for tickets were collected by the workman from the passengers.  
• Aggrieved by the termination the Court filed a writ petition but the same was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of raising a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA). 
• The above order was challenged before the Division Bench and the same was allowed. 
• This order was upheld by the Supreme Court, and it was held that the order of termination of the workman was stigmatic, and the principles of natural justice was violated. 
• Thus, the termination order was quashed and set aside, and the direction was issued to the RSRTC to reinstate the workman in service without back wages. 
• The RSRTC was granted liberty to hold a proper disciplinary inquiry against the workman if advised. 
• The petitioner RSRTC was not satisfied with the order of the Division Bench and on the basis of consent given by both the parties the matter was referred to the National Lok Adalat to explore the possibility of settlement. 
• RSRTC has assailed the impugned award on the technical ground of absence of counsels.  

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The impugned award in question indicated that the same was passed in the terms of the RSRTC Office order/policy decision. 
• The awards passed on the basis of the office order and on the basis of the consent given by the RSRTC’s standing counsel. 
• Such consent awards act as estoppel against the RSRTC and the same are binding on the parties from which the RSRTC cannot wriggle out by taking an afterthought plea that the lawyer was not authorized to enter into settlement. 
• Hence, the petitioner cannot be allowed to assail the validity of the awards passed by the National Lok Adalat unless it is established on record that any fraud or mischief has been played with the petitioner.

What is a Lok Adalat?

About:  

• ‘Lok Adalat’ is an ancient old form of adjudicating system that was prevalent in ancient India and was part of the traditional Indian Culture and social life. 
• The ‘Lok Adalat’ means “People’s Court”. ‘Lok’ stands for “people” and the term ‘Adalat’ means “Court”. 
• Lok Adalat is one of the alternative dispute redressal mechanisms established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (LSA). 
• It is a forum where disputes/ cases pending before the Court of Law are settled/ compromised amicably. 
• Lok Adalat aims to provide cost-effective, timely and amicable resolutions of disputes, reducing the case load of the Courts and promoting social harmony. 
• The Lok Adalat is a way where both parties win, and no one loses.

Award Passed by Lok Adalat:

• Section 21 of LSA provides for the award of Lok Adalat. 
• Section 21 (1) provides that: 
  • Every award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of Civil Court or as the case may be an order of any other Court 
  • Where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at by the Lok Adalat the court fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court fees Act, 1870. 
• Section 21 (2) provides that every award made by a Lok Adalat shall: 
  • Be final and binding on all parties to the dispute.  
  • No appeal shall be made to any court against the award.

What are the Case Laws on the Enforceability of an Award Passed by the Lok Adalat? 

• K. Srinivasappa & Ors v. M. Mallamma & Ors. (2022):  
  • The Court held that a writ petition is maintainable against the award passed by the Lok Adalat especially when such a petition has been filed alleging fraud in the manner of obtaining the award of compromise. 
  • A writ court cannot in a casual manner de hors any reasoning set aside the order of the Lok Adalat. 
  • The award of a Lok Adalat cannot be reversed or set aside without setting aside the facts recorded in such award as being fraudulent arrived at. 
• P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job (2005): 
  • When the Lok Adalat disposes cases in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties to a suit, after following principles of equity and natural justice, every such award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court, and such decree shall be final and binding upon the parties. 
  • No appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) shall lie against the award given the finality attached to an award. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court recently overturned a High Court Division Bench order for lacking proper reasoning. The Division Bench had merely affirmed the single-judge decision without providing detailed explanations for its concurrence. The Supreme Court noted that a decision without reasoned judgment cannot be legally sustained. 

• Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta held in matter of State Project Director, UP Education for All Project Board & Ors. v. Saroj Maurya & Ors   

What was the Background of State Project Director, UP Education for All Project Board & Ors. v. Saroj Maurya & Ors. Case? 

• The State of Uttar Pradesh filed an appeal against a judgment dated 18th April 2022, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 
• The Division Bench's judgment was in response to an intra-court appeal against a common judgment dated 21st December 2021, passed by a Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions. 
• The State of Uttar Pradesh had issued various Government Orders, including one dated 11^th December 2020, which were brought to the attention of the Division Bench. 
• The Division Bench's judgment primarily recorded the cases of the writ petitioners and respondents, along with the findings of the Single Judge. 
• The State contended that the Division Bench did not adequately consider or address the Government Orders and Circulars issued by the appellants. 
• During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court had issued a stay order on 2^nd September 2022, which was subsequently made absolute on 2^nd May 2023. 
• The stay order allowed the State to make appointments with teachers, subject to final orders in the appeal. 
• The State argued that the Division Bench had not applied its mind to the submissions made by both sides and had simply upheld the Single Judge's order without proper reasoning. 
• The case involved issues related to teacher appointments in Uttar Pradesh, with subsequent developments occurring after the initial judgments were passed. 
• The matter raised questions about the adequacy of judicial reasoning and the consideration of relevant government orders in administrative decision-making. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court noted that the Division Bench of the High Court, in its impugned judgment, merely placed on record the cases of the writ petitioners and respondents, followed by the findings of the learned Single Judge. 
• The Supreme Court observed that the Division Bench failed to express its own view on the issues raised before it. 
  • It was also found that the Division Bench's judgment concluded with a mere observation of agreement with the approach and view of the learned Single Judge, without furnishing any reasons, therefore. 
• The Court emphasized that in the absence of any reasoning in the impugned judgment, the same cannot be sustained. 
• Relying on the precedent set in CCT v. Shukla & Bros. (2010), the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that reason is the very life of law and that giving reasons furthers the cause of justice while avoiding uncertainty. 
• The Court observed that the concept of a reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of the basic rule of law and is a mandatory requirement of procedural law. 
• The Supreme Court held that clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision, and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and fair decision. 
• The Court noted that a reasoned judgment serves multiple purposes: to clarify the court's own thoughts, communicate reasons to concerned parties, and provide a basis for consideration by appellate/higher courts. 
• The Supreme Court observed that the absence of reasons in a judgment leads to frustration of these objectives and introduces an element of uncertainty and dissatisfaction. 
• The Court held that there is an unqualified obligation upon courts to record reasons, even in the absence of explicit statutory provisions requiring the same. 
• The Court noted that subsequent developments, including further Government Orders and Circulars issued by the appellants, ought to have been taken into consideration by the Division Bench.

What is a Judgment?

About: 

• A judgment is the official pronouncement of the court's decision on the matters in dispute between parties in a lawsuit. 
• A judgment usually includes:  
  • The court's findings of fact. 
  • The court's conclusions of law. 
  • The decision or ruling on the case. 
  • Any orders for relief or remedies granted. 

Types:

• Final Judgment: Resolves all issues in the case, subject only to appeal. 
• Interlocutory Judgment: Decides some issues while leaving others to be determined later. 
• Default Judgment: Entered against a party who fails to appear or respond to a lawsuit. 
• Summary Judgment: Decided without a full trial when there are no material facts in dispute.

Essential Elements:

• A judgment is binding on the parties involved and can be enforced by law. 
• Precedential value: Judgments, especially from higher courts, may serve as precedents for future cases with similar facts or legal issues. 
• Judgments are typically written in formal, precise legal language to avoid ambiguity. 
• A judgment may be enforced through various means, such as seizure of assets or garnishment of wages. 
• Judgments can usually be appealed to a higher court within specified time limits. 
• Judgments are officially recorded and become part of the public record.

Legal Provision: 

• Section 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) gives the definition of decree, order and judgment. 
• Section 2(9) of CPC lays down the definition of judgment. 
• “Judgment” means the statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. 
• Judgment provides reasons for passing a decree or order. 
• Section 33 of the CPC provides that the Court shall, after the case has been heard, pronounce the judgment and on such judgment decree shall follow. 
• Order XX Rule 1 of CPC provides that judgment must be pronounced in open Court either at once or as soon thereafter as may be practicable. 
• The Proviso to Order XX Rule 1 provides that where the judgment cannot be pronounced at once it must be pronounced within 30 days from the date on which hearing of case was concluded and this period should not extend beyond 60 days from the date on which hearing of case was concluded (in case of exceptional circumstances and due notice of the date fixed must be given to the parties or their pleaders). 
• Order XX Rule 2 of CPC provides that the Judge shall pronounce the judgment written but not pronounced by his predecessor. 
• Order XX Rule 3 of CPC provides that the judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge in open Court and once signed it shall not altered or amended except as provided under Section 152 of CPC or on review. 
• Order XX Rule 4 of CPC provides that Courts other than Courts of Small Causes must contain: 
  • Concise statement of the case 
  • Points for determination 
  • Decision thereon 
  • Reasons for such decision 
• Judgment delivered by Court of Small Causes need not contain more than points for determination and decision thereon. 
• In the case of Gajraj Singh v. Deohu (1951), the Court held that the judgment must be intelligible and must show that the judge has applied his mind.