List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo and others v. State of Punjab has held that for conversion of charges to be a ground for appeal there must be failure of justice. 

What was the Background of the Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo and others v. State of Punjab Case? 

• In the present case, the prosecution met with an accident and a fight started between the two. 
• To stop the fight other victims intervened but the fight resulted in injuries to the victims and one of the victims died. 
• First Information Report (FIR) was registered for the offences under sections 307 and 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) read with section 149, IPC and section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act (AA) and consequently offence under section 302, IPC was added to the said FIR 
• The trial court convicted the appellants. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial court the appellants approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the court confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 
• The Appellant then filed a Special Leave petition before the Supreme Court on the ground that  
  • The High Court did not dwell upon the distinction between common object and common intention while converting the appellants' conviction under section 302 IPC read with section 149 IPC to section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that: 
  • The ambit of common intention and common object to be adjudicated by the Trial court and at last by the High Court, the Supreme Court has not duty to examine the same. 
  • Section 464 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) states that an appeal cannot be filed solely on the ground of conversion of charges unless there is miscarriage of justice. 
  • The appellants had sufficient opportunity to defend themselves at trial stages and were well aware of their charges so there is no scope of miscarriage of justice. 
• The Supreme Court, based on the above observations dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the High Court. 

Section 464 of CrPC 

• This section is now covered under Section 510 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.(BNSS) 
• This section states the provisions for the effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge. 
  • Failure of Justice: 
    • Clause (1) states that no finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. 
    • Clause (2) states that if the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may, — 
  • Omission to Frame: 
    • In the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed, and that the trial be recommended from the point immediately after the framing of the charge. 
  • Error, Omission or Irregularity: 
    • In the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit. 
    • Provided that if the Court is of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction 

What is Alteration or Addition of Charges? 

• About: 
  • A charge may be altered or added by the court at any stage before the judgment is pronounced.
• Section 216 of CrPC: 
  • Section 216 of CrPC deals with ‘court may alter charge’. This provision explains that courts shall have the power to alter or add to charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. 
  • When the court finds that there is sufficient evidence to prove any offence which was not charged by the court earlier, the charge may be altered during the trial. 
  • If an alteration or addition to a charge is likely prejudiced to the accused, the court may proceed with the original charge.
• Purpose: 
  • The main purpose of this provision is to serve the interests of justice.
• Section 217 of CrPC: 
  • Section 217 of CrPC deals with ‘recalling of witness when charge is altered’. 
  • The court can recall the witness when the charge is altered or added by the court after the commencement of the trial.
• Addition or Alteration of Charge under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): 
  • Section 239 of BNSS covers addition or alteration of charge. 
  • Section 240 of BNSS covers recall of witnesses when charge altered.
• Landmark Judgements: 
  • P. Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh and Another (2017): 
    • In this case the Supreme Court observed that if there was an omission in the framing of the charge and if it comes to the knowledge of the Court trying the offence, the power is always vested in the Court, as provided under Section 216 CrPC to either alter or add the charge and that such power is available with the Court at any time before the judgment is pronounced. 
    • After such alteration or addition, when the final decision is rendered, it will be open for the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law.
  • State of Kerala v. Azeez Case (2019): 
    • The Kerala High Court held that the power under Section 216 of CrPC to alter the charge exists only with the court and cannot be based upon an application by any of the parties. 

Source: Gujarat High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Nirzar S Desai held that the consent of the girl is required before the termination of pregnancy and the parents cannot force the termination.                        

• The Gujarat High Court held this in the case of X v. State of Gujarat. 

What was the Background of X v. State of Gujarat Case? 

• A man filed a plea for termination of 25-week pregnancy of his minor daughter. 
• The petition was filed seeking termination of pregnancy on the ground that the girl was 16 years old and was from the lower strata of society. 
• Thus, the matter before the High Court was whether the termination of pregnancy should be allowed or not. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court held that it was primarily the consent of the girl that is required to terminate the pregnancy. 
• The parents cannot force her to terminate the pregnancy. 
• The Counsel pleaded that the consent of the father is also required when the victim is only 16 years old. On this, the Court orally remarked that consent and force are two different things, and the girl cannot be forced to terminate the pregnancy. 
• The father finally withdrew his plea, and the Court held that the petition was disposed of as withdrawn.

What is Medical Termination of Pregnancy? 

About: 

• In India termination of pregnancy was not legal until 1971 when the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) was enacted. 
• The MTP Act came into force on 1st April 1972. 
• Section 3 of the MTP Act lays down when pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners.

• Rule 3B of MTP (Amendment) Rules, 2021 vis-a-via Section 3 (2)(b) of MTP Act: 
  • Rule 3B of the MTP (Amendment) Rules, 2021 provides for the categories of the women who shall be eligible for termination under Section 3 (2) (b) of MTP Act: 
    • Survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest 
    • Minors 
    • Change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and divorce) 
    • Women with physical disabilities [major disability as per criteria laid down under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016) 
    • Mentally ill women including mental retardation 
    • The foetal malformation that has substantial risk of being incompatible with life or if the child is born it may suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped; and 
    • Women with pregnancy in humanitarian settings or disaster or emergency situations as may be declared by the Government 
• Explanation to Section 3 (2) of MTP Act: 
  • Explanation 1 to Section 3 (2) provides that for the purpose of clause (a) 
    • Where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any woman or her partner for the purpose of limiting the number of children or preventing pregnancy, the anguish caused by such pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. 
  • Explanation 2 to Section 3 (2) provides that for the purpose of clause (a) and (b)  
    • Where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by the pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. 
• Consent 
  • Section 3 (4) of the MTP Act provides that the pregnancy of following women shall only with the consent of the guardian in writing: 
    • The woman has not attained the age of 18 years 
    • The woman has attained the age of 18 years and is mentally ill.

What is the International Position on Termination of Pregnancy?

• United States of America: 
  • Roe v. Wade (1973): 
    • Before the landmark judgment of Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in the USA in 30 states. 
    • But after winning in the district court, Roe appealed to the Supreme Court. On Jan 22, 1973, the Supreme Court with a dominant majority of 7-2 amended the constitution. Following the due process of law under the “right to privacy’’, abortion was now legalized in the US. 
    • The judgment halted the practices of many federal and state abortion laws. 
    • Women were furnished with the right to abortion up till fetal viability, that is until the third trimester. 
  • Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992): 
    • With the 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the central holding of the Roe Case. 
  • Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022): 
    • Women Health Organization, an abortion clinic challenged the abortion law of Mississippi that allowed the option of abortion only up to 15 weeks. 
    • The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark judgment of Roe v. Wade. 
    • Thus, the constitutional right to abortion was revoked.
• United Kingdom: 
  • The Abortion Act, 1967 (as amended by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act, 1990) states when abortion is legal in U.K. 
  • The abortion is legal if it is performed by a Registered Medical Practitioner and is authorized by two doctors, acting in good faith, on more of the following grounds: 
    • That the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or 
    • That the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or 
    • That the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or 
    • That there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
• Other Countries: 
  • According to 2017 data, 59 countries allowed elective abortions out of which only 7 permitted the procedure beyond 20 weeks. 
  • These 7 countries are: Canada, China, the Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. Now, India has joined them.

What are the Landmark Judgments on MTP Act?

• Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009): 
  • The Supreme Court held that the right to terminate pregnancy conferred to women under the MTP Act relates to the Constitutional right of women to make reproductive choices under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
• High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra (2018): 
  • The Bombay High Court appropriately determined that forcing a woman to proceed with an undesired pregnancy infringes upon her bodily autonomy, increases her emotional distress, and adversely impacts her mental well-being due to the immediate societal, financial, and other repercussions associated with the pregnancy.
• X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Govt of NCT Delhi (2022): 
  • The Supreme Court court gave the right to all women to terminate their pregnancy under the MTP Act, 1971 within 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Source: Delhi High Court  

Why in News? 

The Delhi High Court clarified that the Taxation and Other Laws Act, 2020 (TOLA) authorization allows the competent authority to act within an extended time frame but does not change the approval process stated in Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Under Section 151, notices under Section 148 cannot be issued after four years without the Commissioner's approval.  

• The court found that if a notice is issued beyond this period, it does not comply with the necessary approval requirements. 
• Justices Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja held in the matter of Abhinav Jindal HUF v. ITO.  

What was the Background of Abhinav Jindal HUF v. ITO Case? 

• The petitioners challenged the validity of reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 
• The primary ground for challenging these reassessments was an alleged violation of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, which deals with the sanction for issuing reassessment notices. 
• The petitioners argued that the sanction for initiating reassessment was granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT), instead of higher authorities as mandated by Section 151(1) of the Act. 
• The notices were issued after the expiry of four years from the relevant Assessment Year, which the petitioners claimed required approval from higher authorities as per Section 151(1). 
• The petitioners contended that even under the amended Section 151 (post Finance Act 2021), which introduced the concept of "specified authority," the approval by JCIT would not be valid. 
• The respondents (tax authorities) defended their actions based on the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), which extended time limits due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 
• The tax authorities argued that TOLA allowed them to initiate reassessment actions despite the expiry of normal time frames, and therefore, approval under Section 151(2) by JCIT was sufficient. 
• There was a dispute between the parties regarding which version of Section 151 should apply - the pre-Finance Act 2021 version or the amended version. 
• The petitioners also raised concerns about the actual date of issuance of the notices, as some were digitally signed and served after April 2021, when the new reassessment regime came into effect. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court held that TOLA (Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020) does not impact or amend the operation of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 
  • TOLA merely extended the time frame for specified authorities to issue notices or accord sanction, without altering the substantive provisions of Section 151. 
• The court noted a discrepancy between the date on the notice (March 31, 2021) and the date of digital signature (April 1, 2021), acknowledging the respondents' explanation of system delay. 
• The court interpreted Section 3 of TOLA as extending statutory time limits falling between 20th March 2020, and 31st December 2020, to 31st March 2021, or a later date as notified by the Central Government. 
• The court observed that Finance Act 2021, which came into effect from April 1, 2021, was enacted after TOLA's initial extension period. 
• The court emphasized that TOLA was designed to overcome statutory closures due to the pandemic, not to confer new jurisdictions or alter existing power structures within specified Acts. 
• The court held that TOLA cannot be interpreted as amending the distribution of power or categorization prescribed by Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. 
• The court clarified that the additional time provided by TOLA does not modify the hierarchy or structure established by Section 151. 
• The court stated that the approval for reassessment should still be based on the time frames specified in Section 151, regardless of TOLA's extension. 
• The court concluded that even if reassessment was initiated under TOLA's extended timeline, the authority empowered to grant approval would remain as specified in Section 151, based on the time elapsed since the relevant Assessment Year. 

What is Section 151 of the Income Tax Act 1961? 

• Section 151 prescribes the sanction procedure for issuing notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 
• The section establishes a two-tier system for granting sanctions, based on the time elapsed since the end of the relevant assessment year. 
• As per sub-section (1), if more than four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the notice under Section 148 can only be issued with the satisfaction and approval of higher authorities, namely:  
  • Principal Chief Commissioner  
  • Chief Commissioner  
  • Principal Commissioner 
  • Commissioner 
• The higher authorities mentioned in sub-section (1) must be satisfied, based on reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for issuing such notice. 
• Sub-section (2) deals with cases where less than four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. 
• In cases falling under sub-section (2), if the Assessing Officer is below the rank of Joint Commissioner, the notice can only be issued with the satisfaction and approval of the Joint Commissioner. 
• The Joint Commissioner must be satisfied, based on reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for issuing such notice. 
• Sub-section (3) clarifies that the sanctioning authorities (Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, Commissioner, or Joint Commissioner) need not issue the notice themselves. 
• The role of the sanctioning authorities is limited to being satisfied with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer regarding the fitness of the case for issuing a notice under Section 148. 
• The section implicitly recognizes that Assessing Officers of the rank of Joint Commissioner or above can issue notices under Section 148 without additional sanction, provided it is within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 
• This section serves as a safeguard against arbitrary or unjustified reopening of assessments, especially in cases where a significant time has elapsed since the original assessment. 
• The section emphasizes the importance of recorded reasons by the Assessing Officer, which form the basis for the sanctioning authority's satisfaction. 

Taxation and Other Laws Act, 2020 

About: 

• The Taxation and Other Laws Act, 2020 was enacted in India to provide relief and address challenges faced by taxpayers due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 
• It amended various tax laws and extended deadlines for filing returns, making tax payments, and completing other compliance-related activities. 
• The Act also introduced changes to several other laws, including those related to charitable trusts, direct tax vivad se vishwas, and prohibition of benami property transactions. 

Legal Provision: 

• The Act provides for relaxation of time limits specified in various tax laws and other related laws due to the exceptional circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 
• It applies to multiple specified Acts, including the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, among others. 
• The Act extends the time limits for completion or compliance of actions falling between March 20, 2020, and June 29, 2020 (or a later date as specified by the government) to June 30, 2020 (or a later date as notified). 
• It reduces the rate of interest payable on delayed tax payments to 0.75% per month or part thereof and waives penalties and prosecution for such delays during the specified period. 
• It also amends certain provisions of other Acts, including the Income-tax Act, 1961, to include the PM CARES Fund for tax deduction purposes, and modifies timelines in the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.