List of Current Affairs

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar issued directions to set up Serious Crimes Investigation Supervising Team to supervise investigation.        

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court held this in the case of Sunit @ Sumit Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh. 

What was the Background of Sunit @ Sumit Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case? 

• The incident alleged in this case took place on 18th June 2020. The applicant was arrested on 2nd December 2020 and has been in custody since then. 
• The applicant had been lodged in jail since last more than 3 years and 8 months and it is likely that the conclusion of the trial would take a lot of time.  
• The case was registered against the accused under Section 302, 34, 450, 397, 398, 114, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959.  
• The present application was the applicant’s sixth bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC))  
• Out of the earlier 5 applications, 3 applications have been dismissed as withdrawn and the two have been allowed temporarily on account of applicant suffering from illness. 
• It is to be noted that in the present case initially only a mobile phone was seized but after three days his pant was also seized which according to the prosecution was worn by the applicant at the time of the incident. 
• It was the case of the accused that the DNA report was falsely made up as it is not possible that the applicant would keep his pants for 6 months in the same condition to be recovered by the prosecution. 
• The State however contended that there was no case for grant of bail. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that the DNA report is in respect of a pant that was seized 6 months after the date of incident. 
• Also, no other material relating to robbery has been seized from the applicant. 
• Considering the fact that only 11 witnesses were examined, and 18 more witnesses were yet to be examined, the Court granted bail to the accused. 
• Accordingly, the Court granted the accused bail. 
• The Court further observed that there were serious lapses in the investigation conducted by the investigating officer.  
  • The Court also observed that this is not an isolated incident. Infact there have been cases earlier as well where the Court failed to discharge the duty with due diligence.

What are the Directions issued by the High Court to the Director General of the Police, M.P., Bhopal? 

• The Court observed in some cases it is only due to the serious lapses committed by the Investigating officer and the Forensic experts that the benefit of doubt is given to the accused. 
• The Court lamented that when a criminal trial is doomed from the beginning because of a slipshod investigation it is nothing but a sheer misuse of process of the Court. 
• Thus, to counter the above the Court directed the Director General of Police, M.P., Bhopal to form a Serious Crimes Investigation Supervising Team. 
• Serious Crimes Investigation Supervising Team (SCIST) 
  • Members: 2 members  
    • headed by a senior level police officer, not below the rank of an experienced IPS officer.  
    • The other would be officer of the Police department not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police who may be chosen by the above said IPS Officer. 
  • Purpose: 
    • The team would supervise the investigation. 
    • The Investigating Officer shall also report and apprise the Team about the progress of the investigation for its inputs, to ensure that there are no lapses in the investigation, and the loopholes are plugged at the right time. 
    • The said team, together with the investigating officer, shall be held responsible for any lapses in the investigation

What are the Major Factors Responsible for Defective or Incomplete Investigations? 

• The Investigating officers commit several mistakes, leaving behind many shortcomings during the process of investigation of crime. Certain causes of defective investigation are as follows: 
  • Ignorance of the relevant law relating to investigations.  
  • Lack of proper training of the investigating officers.  
  • Non-availability of scientific and technical assistance.  
  • Workload  
  • Non-professionalism & perfunctory approach towards investigation. 
  • Delayed reaching to the scene of crime.  
  • Transfer and change of investigating officers during investigations.  
  • Investigating agencies being ill equipped.  
  • Non-accountability of I.Os. in the event of loosing the case. 
  • Extraneous factors.  

What are the Case Laws Highlighting the Need for SCIST? 

• Abhishek S/o Dinesh Dey v. State of M.P. (2022) 
  • The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that to the utter disbelief and shock of the Court the samples collected have not been received by the Forensic Science Laboratory. 
  • Also, the Investigating Officer has not taken care to get the DNA report prepared at the earliest. 
  • The Court held that that such lapses are still being committed by the prosecution agencies despite serious observations made by this Court continuously in one or the other. 
• Habu @ Sunil v. State of M.P. (2012) 
  • In this case again there was a failure on the part of the Investigating Officer and the Forensic experts. 
  • As a result of the above the benefit of doubt was given to the accused. 

Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Movie Time Cinemas Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Chetak Cinema has held that if the presence of valid arbitration agreement is established then it can be invoked by the parties even without naming the arbitrator. 

What was the Background of Movie Time Cinemas Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Chetak Cinema Case? 

• In the present case, the petitioner and respondent entered into a registered lease deed where the two floors of a building were leased by the respondent to the petitioner. 
• The petitioner took possession of the leased premises. 
• Thereafter, the respondent alleged that the leased property has third party rights and tried removing the signs of the petitioner from the lease deed. 
• The same led to invocation of arbitration clause by the petitioner mentioned in the lease deed. 
• The petitioner filed the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A& C Act) before the commercial court. 
• The Commercial Court ordered the respondent to maintain the Status quo of the leased property. 
• Due to non-compliance of the Commercial Court’s order by the respondent the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the A & C Act for appointment of arbitrator. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Rajasthan High court observed that to invoke an arbitration clause there must be an arbitration agreement. 
• The Rajasthan High Court added that the lease deed between the parties had valid arbitration clause and therefore the petitioner can invoke the same. 
• The Rajasthan High Court further held that despite the absence of the name of the arbitrator, the petitioner served sufficient notice. The Court applied the principle of minimum judicial interferences in arbitration matters. 
• The Rajasthan High Court relied upon various Judgements. 
• The Rajasthan High Court therefore accepted the application of the petitioner and appointed the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 

What are the Case Laws Referred in Movie Time Cinemas Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Chetak Cinema Case? 

• Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd (2022): In this case it was held that the requirement of the court under Section 11 of A & C Act is the establishment of valid arbitration agreement. 
• NTPC Ltd. v. M/S SPML Infra Ltd. (2022): In this case it was held that the Court under Section 11 of the A & C Act should only interfere when the case is ex-facie time-barred and dead or, there is no subsisting dispute. 
• In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act (1899): In this case it was held that a referral court at Section 8 or Section 11 of A & C Act stage can only enter into a prima facie determination. 

What is an Arbitration Agreement? 

• Arbitration agreement is defined under Section 7 of the A & C Act. 
• Section 7 of the A & C Act states that an “arbitration agreement” means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. 
• Arbitration Agreement means when two or more parties agree together to refer to the arbitrator in case any dispute arises between them out of the legal relationship. 

What is Section 11 of A & C Act? 

• Nationality of Arbitrators:   
  • Any person of any nationality can be an arbitrator, unless the parties agree otherwise.  
  • Appointment procedure:   
  • Parties are free to agree on a procedure for appointing arbitrators, subject to subsection (6).  
  • In the absence of an agreement, for a three-arbitrator tribunal, each party appoints one arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators select the third (presiding) arbitrator.  
• Role of Arbitral Institutions:   
  • The Supreme Court and High Courts can designate graded arbitral institutions for appointing arbitrators.  
  • In jurisdictions without graded institutions, the Chief Justice of the High Court may maintain a panel of arbitrators.  
  • These arbitrators are deemed to be arbitral institutions and are entitled to fees as specified in the Fourth Schedule.  
• Appointment in Case of Failure:   
  • If a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days of receiving a request, or if the two appointed arbitrators fail to agree on the third within 30 days, the appointment is made by the designated arbitral institution.  
  • For international commercial arbitration, the Supreme Court designates the institution; for other arbitrations, the High Court does so.  
• Sole Arbitrator Appointment:   
  • If parties fail to agree on a sole arbitrator within 30 days, the appointment is made as per subsection (4).  
• Failure to Act under Agreed Procedure:   
  • If a party, the appointed arbitrators, or a designated person/institution fails to perform under the agreed procedure, the court-designated arbitral institution makes the appointment.  
  • Disclosure Requirements:   
  • Before appointing an arbitrator, the arbitral institution must seek a written disclosure from the prospective arbitrator as per Section 12(1).  
  • The institution must consider any qualifications required by the parties' agreement and the contents of the disclosure.  
• International Commercial Arbitration:   
  • For sole or third arbitrator appointments in international commercial arbitrations, the designated institution may appoint an arbitrator of a nationality different from the parties.  
• Multiple appointment requests:   
  • If multiple requests are made to different institutions, the one receiving the first request is competent to appoint.  
• Time frame for appointment:   
  • The arbitral institution must dispose of an application for appointment within 30 days of serving notice on the opposite party.  
• Fees Determination:   
  • The arbitral institution determines the arbitral tribunal's fees and payment manner, subject to rates in the Fourth Schedule.  
  • This doesn't apply to international commercial arbitrations or where parties have agreed on fee determination as per arbitral institution rules.  
• Non-delegation of Judicial Power:   
  • The designation of a person or institution by the Supreme Court or High Court is not considered a delegation of judicial power. 

Source: Allahabad High Court  

Why in News? 

The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that Hindu marriages, is based on sacramental principles, cannot be dissolved like contracts. This decision came while allowing a woman's appeal against a family court's ruling that had dissolved her marriage based solely on her husband's request.  

• The court observed that a Hindu marriage can only be declared void under specific conditions, the need for substantial evidence in cases of impotency. 

What was the Background of  X v. Y? 

• A couple married in 2006 under Hindu marriage laws. 
• The husband, an Indian Army employee, filed for divorce in 2008, alleging desertion by his wife in 2007 and claiming she was infertile. 
• Initially, the wife filed a written statement in 2008 consenting to the divorce. 
• The case was referred to mediation, which concluded on 25th April, 2008. 
• In 2010, the wife filed a second written statement contesting the divorce and challenging the infertility claim.  
  • She presented evidence of having given birth to two children, in 2008 and 2010. 
• The husband objected to the filing of the second written statement. 
• A second mediation attempt was made in August 2010, which failed. 
• In March 2011, the family court allowed the husband's objection and refused to consider the wife's second written statement. 
• On the same day, the family court heard the case on its merits and granted the husband's divorce petition. 
• Evidence on record indicated that the couple had attempted reconciliation through army authorities in November 2009, agreeing to cohabit and revive their matrimonial relationship.  
• The wife challenged the family court's decision by filing an appeal in the High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that the trial court erred by relying solely on the initial Written Statement and consent given by the appellant (wife) in 2008, while disregarding subsequent material developments in the case. 
  • The Court opined that the trial court should have examined whether the appellant's consent to divorce persisted at the time of decree, as mutual consent is a jurisdictional fact in divorce proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 
  • The Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for reconsideration as per law. 
• The Court observed that once the appellant had withdrawn her consent and this fact was on record, it was not open to the trial court to act on the withdrawn consent belatedly, especially after a lapse of three years. 
• The Court emphasized that in matters of Hindu marriage, which is considered a sacrament, dissolution should not be treated as a mere contractual termination and should only be granted in limited circumstances prescribed by law. 
• The Court ruled that the trial court had the discretion under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, to allow a subsequent pleading or seek an additional statement to examine changed circumstances, particularly given the protracted nature of the proceedings. 

Whether Hindu Marriage is a Contract or Not?  

• Hindu marriage is considered a sacred union, not merely a civil contract. 
• The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 recognizes marriage as a sacrament rather than a contractual agreement. 
• Unlike contracts, Hindu marriages cannot be dissolved simply by mutual consent (as per Section 10 of Indian Contract Act 1872) of the parties involved. 
• Divorce in Hindu marriages is only allowed under specific grounds, not by treating it as a breakable contract. 
• The sacred nature of Hindu marriage imposes certain duties and obligations that go beyond typical contractual relationships. 
• Hindu marriage considered as a lifelong commitment with religious and social significance beyond just a legal arrangement. 
• The concept of marriage as sacrament in Hinduism states that its permanence and indissolubility. 
• Hindu marriages cannot be treated as dissolvable contracts. 
• The non-contractual view of Hindu marriage reflects traditional religious and cultural values. 

The Sacramental Nature of Hindu Marriage 

• Hindu marriage, as per ancient Vedas and Shastras, is primarily considered a sacrament, characterized by its religious and holy nature, necessitating the performance of specific religious ceremonies and rites for its validity. 
• The sacramental nature of Hindu marriage is legally recognized to possess three key characteristics:  
  • Permanence: The union is considered unbreakable once solemnized.  
  • Eternality: The marriage is believed to transcend the current life and extend into future lives.  
  • Sanctity: The performance of religious ceremonies is essential for its completion. 
  • The concept of wife as 'Ardhangini' (half of man) is legally acknowledged, implying that a man is considered incomplete until he marries, as per the Satpatha Brahmana. 
• In Shivanandy v. Bhagavathyamma,1961 the court held that a Hindu marriage, performed through saptapadi before the sacred fire, creates a religious tie that is legally indissoluble. 
• Hindu law recognizes marriage as obligatory for the discharge of ancestral debts and the performance of religious and spiritual duties, particularly through the begetting of a son. 
• The legal validity of a Hindu marriage is contingent upon the performance of certain essential rites and ceremonies, such as Homa and Kanyadan, which must be conducted in the presence of a Brahmin with the chanting of mantras. 
• As established in Piya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh,1971 the performance of Homa and Saptapadi are considered essential rites for a valid Hindu marriage, and failure to perform these may render the marriage legally questionable. 
• While the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 incorporates certain contractual elements, it does not entirely negate the sacramental nature of Hindu marriage, resulting in a hybrid legal concept that combines both sacramental and contractual aspects.