List of Current Affairs

Source: Chhattisgarh High Court 

Why in News?

The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld murder convictions based heavily on circumstantial evidence tied to an extramarital affair, significance of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. The Court observed that in such cases, the prosecution must prove every link in the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, leaving no room for innocence. 

• Justices Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held in Dilip Sariwan v. State of Chhattisgarh . 

What was the Background of Dilip Sariwan v. State of Chhattisgarh? 

• The case involve the murder of Durgesh Panika, which occurred between the night of 15^th August, 2020, and 16^th August, 2020. 
• On 16^th August, 2020, at around 7:00 AM, Durgesh Panika's body was found near Gulab Raj's motor pump in Harratola, along with an abandoned motorcycle. 
• The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was homicidal in nature, resulting from head injuries. 
• The prosecution alleged that the murder was the result of a conspiracy involving multiple individuals, including Durgesh's wife, Kamta Panika, and her alleged lover, Tirath Lal Kashipuri. 
• The motive for the murder was reportedly connected to an extramarital affair between Kamta Panika and Tirath Lal Kashipuri, which had caused tensions in Kamta's marriage with Durgesh. 
• Several individuals were accused of being involved in the conspiracy and murder, including Tirath Lal Kashipuri, Dilip Sariwan, Pawan Marco, Jai Prakash Yadav, Ritesh Verma, Mahendra Panika, and Kamta Panika. 
• The prosecution's case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, as there were no direct eyewitnesses to the murder. 
• Key pieces of evidence included Call Detail Records (CDRs), tower location reports, seized items such as clothing and a jack rod, and forensic reports indicating the presence of blood on various articles. 
• The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to kill Durgesh, lured him to a location under the pretext of drinking alcohol, and then murdered him using a jack rod. 
• After the murder, the accused allegedly attempted to stage the death as an accident by placing the body on Harratola road. 
• The case was investigated by the police, and various items were seized based on the memorandum statements of the accused. 
• The prosecution charged the accused under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 34 (common intention), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court held that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is obligated to prove every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt to complete the chain of circumstances, leaving no room for any hypothesis of innocence. 
•  The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mehboob Ali & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2016, states that discoveries of facts under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, pertaining to other accused persons are admissible to establish charges of conspiracy in furtherance of common intention. 
• The Court observed that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which allows for the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of facts, even if such information amounts to a confession, provided it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. 
• The Court applied the "five golden principles" of circumstantial evidence as established by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) recognizing that the case at hand lacked direct evidence. 
• Upon examination of the Call Detail Records (CDR), the Court determined that the deceased, Durgesh Panika, was aware of the illicit relationship between accused Kamta and accused Tirath, which provided the motive for the murder. 
• The Court concluded that accused Kamta, despite her absence at the murder scene, was guilty of criminal conspiracy for instructing Tirath to "remove Durgesh from her path." 
• The Court determined that the prosecution successfully established its case by linking 11 circumstances, proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had formed a common intention to murder Durgesh Panika between the night of 15.08.2020 and 16.08.2020. 
• The Court, finding no illegality or infirmity in the trial Court's judgment, dismissed the criminal appeals and upheld the life imprisonment sentences of the appellants. 

What is Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 ? 

• Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act ,1872 deals with How much of information received from accused may be proved.  
  • Now covers under Section 23 of BSA,2023 
• Section 23 of BSA, 2023 deals with Confession to police officer. 
• It states that : 
  • Any confession made to a police officer is inadmissible as evidence against the person accused of an offence. 
  • A confession made by a person while in police custody is inadmissible as evidence against that person, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. 
  • Oral admissions regarding the contents of documents may be relevant and admissible in certain circumstances, subject to the rules of evidence. 
  • In civil cases, admissions made by parties may be relevant and admissible as evidence, subject to specific rules and exceptions. 
  • A confession obtained through inducement, threat, coercion, or promise is deemed irrelevant and inadmissible in criminal proceedings. 
  • Notwithstanding the inadmissibility of confessions made to police officers, there exists an exception under Section 23 BSA,2023. 
  • Section 23 provides that when a fact is discovered as a consequence of information received from an accused person in police custody, so much of such information may be proved as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. 
  • The admissibility under Section 23 applies regardless of whether the information amounts to a confession or not. 
  • The rationale behind Section 23 is to allow the admission of information that leads to the discovery of a relevant fact, even if that information forms part of an otherwise inadmissible confession. 
  • For information to be admissible under Section 23, there must be a clear nexus between the information provided by the accused and the fact discovered. 
  • Only that portion of the information which relates distinctly and directly to the fact discovered is admissible, not the entire statement or confession. 
  • The discovery of the fact must be a consequence of the information received from the accused while in police custody. 
  • The fact discovered must be unknown to the police before the information was received from the accused. 
  • The admissibility under Section 23 is limited to the information that relates distinctly to the fact discovered and does not extend to other parts of the statement or confession. 
  • The court must carefully scrutinize the information and the discovered fact to ensure that only the relevant portion is admitted as evidence. 
  • The burden of proving that the requirements of Section 27 have been met lies with the prosecution. 
  • The application of Section 23 must be balanced against the fundamental rights of the accused, particularly the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 

Case Law 

• In State of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005), the Supreme Court affirmed that the fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the IEA must be some concrete fact to which the information directly relates. 
• In Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), the Supreme Court held that formal accusation and formal police custody are essential pre-requisites under Section 27 of the IEA. 

Source: The Hindu 

Why in News?

In a groundbreaking move, the Government of Kerala constituted a three membered Expert Committee to study and report on various issues faced by women in the cinema industry. This initiative, the first of its kind in India, was led by Justice K. Hema, a former judge of the High Court of Kerala.  

What is the Background of Justice Hema Committe? 

• Committee Formation 
  • The committee was formed in response to a petition submitted by the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) to the Chief Minister of Kerala, Sri Pinarayi Vijayan
  • The WCC, established in May 2017, sought to address numerous concerns affecting women in the Malayalam film industry. 
  • The Justice Hema Committee submitted its report to the State Government in December 2019; however, it was released on 19th August 2024. 
• Committee Members 
  The committee comprised three distinguished members: 
  • Justice K. Hema (Chairperson) - Former Judge, High Court of Kerala 
  • Smt. T. Sarada - One Artist 
  • Smt. K.B. Valsalakumari - Principal Secretary (Retd), Government of Kerala 

What were the Terms of Reference of Justice Hema Committee Report?  

The government issued specific Terms of Reference (TOR) for the committee's study. The main aspects to be examined included: 

• Issues faced by women in cinema, including security concerns, and potential solutions 
• Service conditions and remuneration for women in cinema 
• Measures to enhance women's participation in all fields connected to cinema 
• Strategies to bring more women into the technical side of cinema 
• Support systems for women during periods of work absence due to childbirth, childcare, or health issues 
• Ensuring gender equality in cinema content 
• Encouraging productions with at least 30% women engagement in production activities 

What were the Key Issues Identified? 

The committee identified several critical issues faced by women in the Malayalam film industry: 

• Sexual Harassment and Abuse 
  • Sexual demands made to women for entry into cinema and for securing roles. 
  • Sexual harassment, abuse, and assault at the workplace, during transportation, and in accommodations. 
• Workplace Environment and Safety 
  • Violation of human rights by failing to provide basic facilities like toilets and changing rooms on sets. 
  • Lack of safety and security in cinema, accommodations, and transportation. 
• Power Dynamics and Discrimination 
  • Unauthorized and illegal banning of individuals working in cinema. 
  • Silencing of women under the threat of being banned from work. 
  • Male domination in the industry, gender bias, and discrimination. 
  • Disparity in remuneration between men and women. 
• Professional Challenges 
  • Gross indiscipline in the cinema industry, including the consumption of alcohol, drug use, and disorderly conduct. 
  • Non-execution of written contracts between employers and employees. 
  • Failure to pay agreed-upon remuneration. 
  • Resistance to allowing women into technical roles and providing them with opportunities. 
• Legal and Awareness Issues 
  • Online harassment (cyber-attacks). 
  • Lack of legal awareness among women about their rights. 
  • Absence of any legally constituted authority to redress grievances. 

What is the View of Justice Hema Committee on Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)?  

Internal Complaint Committee:

• The Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) filed a writ petition seeking directions to constitute an ICC in every production unit and within the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA). 
• AMMA argued that it is not an employer and, therefore, not obligated to form an ICC. 
• The committee found that forming an ICC within the industry might not be effective due to the power dynamics and potential for intimidation. 

Establishment of Independent Forum:

• The establishment of an independent forum constituted by the government, as per statute, to address the issues faced by women in cinema. 
• The report emphasizes that only through such an independent body can women be liberated from the systemic issues in the Malayalam film industry.  

What were the Observations by Smt. T. Sarada? 

Smt. T. Sarada, a member of the committee, raised further concerns based on evidence provided by women in the industry: 

• Sexual Harassment:  
  • Sexual harassment has been a persistent issue in the industry. While it existed in the past, societal changes and the influence of Western culture have made such behaviors more visible. 
  • The committee noted that women now face "knocks on their doors" at night, and that the so-called "casting couch" has always existed but is now spoken about more openly. 
• Ban:  
  • The threat of an unofficial ban existed in the past but was rarely implemented.
  • However, today, women who speak out or demand higher remuneration are often avoided and excluded from films.  
• Lack of Contract:  
  • Many women do not receive proper remuneration due to the absence of contracts. A contract would ensure that producers are bound to pay what is agreed upon. 
• Prevalence of Alcohol and Drugs:  
  • The use of drugs and alcohol is rampant among the younger generation in the film industry, contributing to workplace indiscipline. 
• Unsafe Accommodation:  
  • Women are often provided with unsafe and unsuitable accommodation, which affects their performance. The committee recommended that women be accommodated together, in safe environments, without isolation. 
• Equal Remuneration:  
  • Smt. T. Sarada disagreed with the demand for equal remuneration, stating that audience demand for women is not the same as for men in films. 
• Workplace Definition:  
  • Only indoor studios and outdoor locations should be defined as the workplace in the film industry. 
• Cyberattacks:  
  • The government should take strong action against cyberattacks, which ruin the careers of women and men in the industry. 
• Age Bar for Makeup Artists:  
  • Smt. Sarada questioned the age bar for makeup women and why they are not issued job cards. 
• Gender Discrimination:  
  • Women producers face insults and abuse from actors and directors, solely due to their gender. 

What were the Recommendations for Gender Justice in Film Content? 

To achieve gender justice in the content of movies, the following measures were noted by Smt. K.B. Valsalakumari: 

• Enhance the Visibility of Women and Girls On-Screen 
  • Women and girls should be prominently visible on-screen, reflecting their representation in society. The study, conducted in collaboration with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), revealed that: 
    • India, for instance, has only 24.9% of female characters in leading or co-leading roles. 
    • Countries like Korea, Japan, and China have higher representation rates compared to India. 
• Characterization of Women in Positions of Power 
  • It is essential to portray women in positions of authority—politicians, judges, scientists, businesswomen, IAS/IPS officers, ambassadors, pilots, and journalists—to inspire young girls and showcase diverse role models.  
  • By depicting women in these roles, content creators can help break traditional gender barriers. 
• Gender Awareness Training Programs 
  • Gender awareness training should be mandatory for everyone involved in movie-making—producers, directors, content writers, actors, technicians, and even drivers and junior artists.  
  • This training will help dismantle the long-standing monopoly of power enjoyed by men and encourage a re-imagination of gender roles.  
• Redefining Masculinity and Femininity 
  • Films often portray masculinity as synonymous with violence, aggression, and brutality, while femininity is depicted as passive and submissive.  
  • A new genre of films should emerge, showcasing masculinity as caring, just, and compassionate.  
• Certification of Gender Justice 
  • Similar to the certification process used for films involving animals, every movie should display a certificate stating that no dialogue or situation in the film glorifies gender injustice.  
  • This will ensure that films promote fair representation and discourage harmful stereotypes. 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

• Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Lambodar Prasad Padhy v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others has held that no case can be registered against an unknown official without a previous sanction of the competent authority as per Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (PC). 

What was the Background of Lambodar Prasad Padhy v. Central Bureau of Investigation Case? 

• In the present case, a preliminary inquiry was conducted, and the case was registered against the Petitioner. 
• The petitioner was charged under Section 120B read with Section 477A Indian Penal Code, 1860 & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) PC Act based on findings of Preliminary Enquiry. 
• It was alleged by the respondent (Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI]) that at the time of making of Ajmer-Kishangarh Highway the petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with the other companies and National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) involved in the project. 
• It was also alleged that a hard disk was recovered from the petitioner. 
• It was allegedly said that the hard disk allegedly contained details of Subcontractors, false invoices provided by Sub-Contractors for cash generation, names of Indian officials to whom cash was provided by Spanish accused persons for further delivering the same to NHAI officials. 
• Later, CBI wrote a letter to Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRT&H), Government of India thereby seeking permission under Section 17A of PC Act. 
• The permission was denied as there were no concrete evidences found against those NHAI officials of wrongdoings. 
• However, since the respondent proceeded with registration of case despite declining of approval by the Competent Authority, under Section 17A of PC Act. 
• The present writ petition was filed to quash the case before Delhi High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Delhi High Court in this case observed the scope and purpose of Section 17A of PC Act as follows: 
  • It states that no inquiry or investigation can be commenced against the public official when he is in discharge of his duty without prior sanction of the competent authority. 
  • The purpose of this provision is to protect the honest officials who are working under their capacity as per the PC Act. 
  • It is further added that the purpose of this provision is to bar any arbitrary enquiry, inquiry or investigation against the officials. 
  • The High Court further stated that a preliminary enquiry can be held against an unknown official. 
• The Delhi High Court, after making all the above observations, held that there was no concrete evidence found against the petitioner and merely based on hard disk no corroboration can be made. 
• The Delhi High Court further stated that the respondent has abused the process of law and under Section 17A of PC Act the investigating authorities must necessarily take sanctions for proceeding with enquiry. 

What is Section 17A of the PC Act? 

• Section 17A was incorporated through 2018 amendment under the PC Act. 
• Prior Approval refers to the requirement for investigators, particularly agencies like the Crime Investigation Department (CID) or CBI, to obtain approval from the government or a competent authority before initiating an inquiry or investigation into allegations of corruption against public officials. 
• This approval is necessary before any formal action, such as lodging an FIR (First Information Report) or conducting a detailed investigation, can take place. 
• Section 17A of the PC Act is states as below: 
  • Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties 
    • No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval 
      • in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government 
      • in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government. 
      • in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. 
      • Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person 
      • Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month. 

What are the Cases Based on Section 17A of PC Act? 

• Z.U. Siddiqui v. Bal Kishan Kapoor & Ors. (2005): 
  • Under this case it was emphasized that Section 17A of PC (Amendment) Act, 2018 has to be interpreted to advance the objective in favour of public servants.  
• P.K.Pradhan v. State of Sikkim through CBI (2001): 
  • In this case it was held that, to submit that the case has to be registered under PC Act, there has to be a reasonable connection with the act complained of and ‘discharge of official duty.’ 
• Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr (2023): 
  • This case was related to the definition of enquiry/inquiry/investigation and if Section 17A is procedural or substantive in nature. Further, whether Section 17A has retrospective/prospective application. However, in this case it was held that it needs to be underscored that the overarching object of the provision is to prevent arbitrary or vexatious investigations against the public servants. 

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Alok Mathur held that great grandchild is not a ‘dependent’ of freedom fighters.        

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of Avani Pandey v. Directorate General of Medical Education And Training Thru Director General Lucknow And Another 

What is the Background of Avani Pandey v. Directorate General of Medical Education And Training Thru Director General Lucknow And Another Case? 

• The petitioner has appeared in NEET-UG- 2024 examination for admission to MBBS course. 
• The petitioner is a domicile of Uttar Pradesh and has passed class 10th and 12th standard from Bareilly, while her great grandfather and great grandmother were the domiciles of State of Bihar.  
• The petitioner is seeking grant of reservation of dependent of freedom fighters. 
• However, the petitioner has been denied benefit of reservation under the dependent of freedom fighter category. 
• The petition has been filed to declare the guidelines issued by Respondent no. 1 to the extent it excludes the dependent of freedom fighters from other States as illegal so as to avail the benefit of reservation under freedom fighter category as being discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).  

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court answered the question raised here: “Whether great granddaughter of freedom fighters is also to be granted benefit as being dependent of freedom fighter as per Section 2 (b) of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom fighters and Ex- Servicemen) Act, 1993 ?” 
• The Court referred to previous judgments and held that it has been established that great grand son is not included in the definition of ‘dependents. 
• Accordingly, the Court held that in this case as well the great grand daughter shall not be included within the ambit of ‘dependents.  

Who is a Dependent under U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom fighters and Ex- Servicemen) Act, 1993? 

• Section 2 (b) of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Physically Hnadicapped, Dependents of Freedom fighters and Ex- Servicemen) Act, 1993 defines ‘dependent’. 
• This Section provides that ‘dependent’ with reference to a freedom fighter means: 
  • Son or daughter (married or unmarried); 
  • Grand son (son of a son or daughter) and Grand daughter (daughter of a son or daughter) (married or unmarried).

Landmark Case Law on Reservation Granted to Dependents of Freedom Fighters

• Krishna Nand Rai v. State of U.P. and 2 others (2020) 
  • In this case the petitioner came to the Court to be granted reservation as he was great grand son of a freedom fighter and was hence eligible for reservation under the category of ‘dependents of freedom fighters’. 
  • The Court held that the benefit of being dependent of freedom fighter is available only to descendants upto the stage of grandson and not beyond it i.e. a great grandson or descendants lower in line would not come within the definition of ‘dependent of freedom fighter’. 
  • Hence, the Allahabad High Court rejected the plea and held that the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of reservation.