List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of Kunal Kamra v. Union of India has held that the citizens only have the “right to free speech and expression” and not the “right to know truth” and therefore the State cannot claim that only true information is to be disseminated amongst the citizens.

What was the Background of Kunal Kamra v. Union of India Case? 

• In the present case, the validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules) as amended were challenged by the petitioner. 
• The petitioner in the present case is a political satirist and commences his business over social media platforms. 
• It was pleaded that the rule may lead to arbitrary censorship by the Fact Check Units (FCU) which may lead to removal of his contents from the social media platforms. 
• It was also pleaded that the aggrieved person has no remedy if his content is flagged fake by the FCU. 
• The Ministry of Information and Technology argued that censorship is required so as to prevent the spread of misleading information and is in the interest of public at large. 
• It was argued that the Central Government can establish Fact Check Units (FCU) to prevent the spread of fake news amongst the citizens on the social media platforms. 
• It was challenged that the amendment under IT Rules is ultra virus and is in violation of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution of India (COI) 
• The Division Bench held a split opinion that: 
  • Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules as being ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the COI. 
  • Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 
  • While Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale held that the rule is not in violation of the articles of the constitution neither is contrary to the judgement of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015). 
• Due to the split opinion by the Division bench the matter was referred to Bombay High Court for third opinion and to break the tie. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Bombay High Court in the present case observed that: 
  • Information in digital form is not subjected to the provisions of Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of IT Rules but only when in print form. 
  • The amendment would lead to infringement of the Right to equality of Digital media users as the applicability of Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of IT Rules is only when an information is in printed form. 
  • The role of FCU is to determine whether any information against the business of the Central government is fake or misleading and whether the government is the aggrieved party in the matter or not. 
  • The Central Government is acting as an arbiter in the present case. 
  • The FCU shall work only for the Central Government and not for the State Government. 
  • The FCU had no guidelines that are to be followed to check the validity of the information. 
• The Bombay High Court after making the above observations held that: 
  • The amendment of Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of IT Rules is in violation of Article 21 of the COI as the test of proportionality is not being used properly while making the amendment. 
  • The amendment is ultra virus and violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the COI. 
  • The citizens only have the “right to free speech and expression” and not the “right to know truth” and therefore the State cannot claim that only true information is to be disseminated amongst the citizens. 

What are IT Rules 2021? 

• The Government of India enacted the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules 2021) on 25th February 2021, superseding the previous 2011 guidelines.  
• These rules came into effect for significant intermediaries on 26th May 2021, and were developed in response to growing concerns about social media abuse and digital platform misuse.

What are the Amendments to Rule 3 of IT Rules? 

• Rule 3 is the contentious rule. Parts of it were amended in 2022 and then again in 2023. There is no challenge to the 2022 amendment. 
• The grounds in subclause 1 of rule 3 have been rationalized by removing the words ‘defamatory’ and ‘libellous’. 
• Whether any content is defamatory or libellous will be determined through judicial review. 
• Some of the content categories in subclause 1 of rule 3 (rule 3(1)(b)) have been rephrased to deal particularly with misinformation, and content that could incite violence between different religious/caste groups. 

What is Rule 3(1)(b)(V) of IT Rules? 

• Rule 3(1)(b)(V) of IT Rules states the rules for Due diligence by an intermediary. 
• It states that the intermediaries need to ensure a list of criteria given while performing their duties and the intermediaries also includes social media intermediaries under this rule. 
• The specific rules obliges intermediaries to ensure that the the rules and regulations, privacy policy or user agreement of the intermediary shall inform the user of its computer resource not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information that is in violation of any law enforced in India. 

Source: Allahabad High  Court  

Why in News? 

The Allahabad High Court ruled that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to hear tenant suits for perpetual injunction against landlords regarding eviction, stating this is not barred by the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.  

• Justices Subhash Vidyarthi in the matter of Harmeet Singh v. Desh Deepak Gupta.   
• The court observed the dismissal of a tenant's suit by the Civil Judge of Rae Bareli, which was challenged by the petitioner after his revision was also rejected. 

What was the Background of Harmeet Singh v. Desh Deepak Gupta? 

• The petitioner, a tenant, filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the landlord from evicting him from a property in his tenancy, except in accordance with the law. 
• On 15^th November 2022, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 16 Raebareli dismissed the suit at the admission stage in Civil Miscellaneous Case. 
• The Civil Judge's dismissal was based on Section 38(1) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (Act of 2021), which states that no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding related to the provisions of the Act. 
• The petitioner filed a revision against this order, which was heard by the First Additional District Judge, Raebareli. 
• On 7^th August 2023, the First Additional District Judge dismissed the revision in Civil Revision No. 35 of 2022, affirming the Civil Judge's order. 
• The petitioner then filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the validity of both the Civil Judge's order and the First Additional District Judge's order. 
• The petitioner's counsel, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, argued that while the Act of 2021 allows landlords to file suits for eviction and recovery of rent, it does not provide for tenants to file suits for perpetual injunction against dispossession. 
• The respondent's counsel, Shri Gopesh Tripathi, contended that the landlord was not attempting to dispossess the petitioner unlawfully, and therefore, the petitioner had no cause of action to file the suit. 
• The respondent's counsel did not dispute the petitioner's claim that the Act of 2021 does not empower rent authorities or tribunals to entertain suits for perpetual injunction filed by tenants. 
• The case centered on the interpretation of the Act of 2021 and its impact on the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters of tenancy disputes, particularly regarding suits for injunction filed by tenants against landlords. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court, upon examination of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, noted that while the Act confers jurisdiction on rent authorities and tribunals to entertain petitions filed by landlords for eviction, ejectment, and recovery of arrears, it is silent on the matter of suits for perpetual injunction filed by tenants against dispossession. 
• The Court observed that the Act of 2021 does not contain any provision that explicitly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain suits for injunction filed by tenants against their landlords. 
• In the Court's considered view, the absence of a specific provision in the Act empowering rent authorities or tribunals to hear suits for perpetual injunction filed by tenants indicates that such jurisdiction was not intended to be transferred from Civil Courts. 
• The Court held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain suits for injunction filed by tenants against their landlords continues to subsist even after the enactment of the Act of 2021. 
• The Court found that by declining to admit the suit for perpetual injunction filed by the petitioner, the Civil Judge failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law. 
• The Court deemed both the order passed by the Civil Judge and the subsequent order by the revisional court affirming it to be unsustainable in law. 

What is an Injunction? 

• An injunction, mentioned from section 36 to 44 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA), is a form of preventive relief in which the court restrains the party threatening breach to the extent possible. 
  • Injunctions under SRA may be divided into different types namely temporary, perpetual and mandatory. 

What is Perpetual Injunction? 

• About 
  • A perpetual injunction is a judicial order that permanently restrains a person from performing or continuing a specific act that infringes upon another's legal rights.  
  • It is governed by Section 37(2) of the SRA and can only be granted by a decree made after a full trial on the merits of the case. 
• Key Characteristics 
  • They are rights in personam, not rights in rem. 
  • They can be inherited if related to heritable and partible rights. 
  • They bind the legal representatives of the parties involved. 
• Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act 
  Section 38 outlines the conditions under which perpetual injunctions may be granted: 
  1. To prevent the breach of an obligation existing in the plaintiff's favor, either expressly or by implication. 
  2. When the obligation arises from a contract, the court must follow the rules in Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act. 
  3. When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff's right to or enjoyment of property, in cases where:  
     • a) The defendant is a trustee of the property for the plaintiff.
     • b) There is no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused.
     • c) Monetary compensation would not provide adequate relief.
     • d) An injunction is necessary to prevent multiple judicial proceedings.
• Prerequisites for Obtaining a Perpetual Injunction 
  To obtain a perpetual injunction, the following elements must be present: 
  • An existing obligation and its breach 
  • A legal right of the plaintiff and a corresponding duty of the defendant 
  • Actual or threatened infringement of the plaintiff's right 
  • Inadequacy of monetary compensation as a remedy 
• Procedure and Burden of Proof 
  • The procedure for obtaining a perpetual injunction involves: 
    • Filing a suit with proper pleadings 
    • Establishing the plaintiff's case through evidence 
    • Proving the existence of a legal right and its infringement 
  • The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, who must: 
    • Demonstrate clean hands when seeking this equitable relief 
    • Rely on the strength of their own case, not the weaknesses of the defendant's 
    • Prove possession or enjoyment of the property or right in question 
• Limitations and Considerations 
  • When granting perpetual injunctions, courts must consider: 
    • Sections 39 to 42 of the SRA, which limit the court's power to grant injunctions 
    • The nature of the obligation (express or implied) 
    • The potential for multiple judicial proceedings 
    • The adequacy of monetary compensation as an alternative remedy 

Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 

• Scope and Application (Section 2) 
  • Applies to all urban areas in Uttar Pradesh 
  • Covers all tenancies for residential and non-residential premises 
  • Excludes certain properties like hotels, lodging houses, dharamshalas, etc. 
• Tenancy Agreement (Section 4) 
  • Mandatory written agreement between landlord and tenant 
  • Must be informed to the Rent Authority within two months 
  • Specifies rent, security deposit, duration, and other terms 
• Rights and Obligations of Tenants (Sections 5-11) 
  • Pay rent on time 
  • Carry out repairs for damage caused by tenant 
  • Not make structural changes without landlord's written consent 
  • Allow landlord access for repairs or inspection with prior notice 
• Rights and Obligations of Landlords (Sections 12-15) 
  • Provide essential utilities and services 
  • Carry out structural repairs and maintenance 
  • Not cut off or withhold essential supplies or services 
  • Prior notice required for entry into rented premises 
• Rent and Security Deposit (Sections 8, 16) 
  • Rent to be revised as per the agreement 
  • Security deposit capped at two months' rent for residential properties 
  • Three months' rent for non-residential properties 
• Eviction and Recovery of Possession (Sections 20-22) 
  • Grounds for eviction include:  
  • Failure to pay rent for two consecutive months 
  • Misuse of premises 
  • Structural changes without permission 
  • Landlord requiring premises for own use 
  • Specific procedure for eviction to be followed 
• Rent Authorities and Rent Courts (Sections 30-37) 
  • Establishment of Rent Authority, Rent Court, and Rent Tribunal 
  • Rent Authority to resolve disputes related to revision of rent, etc. 
  • Rent Court to handle eviction cases and other tenancy disputes 
  • Rent Tribunal as appellate authority 
• Jurisdiction and Procedures (Sections 38-50) 
  • Civil courts barred from entertaining matters under this Act 
  • Time-bound disposal of cases 
  • Provision for execution of orders 
• Offences and Penalties (Section 51) 
  • Penalties for contravention of provisions 
  • Fines up to ₹50,000 for certain offences 
• Miscellaneous Provisions (Sections 52-60) 
  • Power to make rules 
  • Act to have overriding effect 
  • Transitory provisions for exist