List of Current Affairs

Source: DD News

Why in News?

On 30^th September, the Delhi Police commissioner announced the immediate enforcement of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) due to anticipated protests and demonstrations in early October. This six-day directive prohibits gatherings of five or more people, bans sit-ins, and restricts the carrying of weapons in specific districts of Delhi.

• The decision is prompted by political tensions linked to various issues, including the DUSU election results and upcoming festivals, with an aim to maintain law and order during sensitive events.

Why was Section 163 of BNSS Implemented in Delhi?

• On 30^th September 2024, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, exercising powers vested under the law, implemented Section 163 of BNSS 2023 in specific districts of Delhi.
• The order shall remain in effect for a duration of six days from the date of implementation.
• Grounds for Implementation:
  • Intelligence inputs indicating the probability of protests, demonstrations, and campaigns by various organizations across Delhi in the first week of October 2024
  • Sensitive atmosphere due to current law and order situation
• Political Tensions Concerning:
  • Proposed amendments to the Waqf Board
  • The Shahi Idgah issue
  • Pending Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) election results
  • Assembly elections in two states
• Operational Impact:
  • Prohibition on sit-in demonstrations
  • Restriction on carrying any type of weapon
  • Enhanced security arrangements, particularly in view of:
    • Impending announcement of Delhi University election results
    • Gandhi Jayanti celebrations on 2^nd October 2024
• Additional Considerations:
  • Anticipated surge in VVIP movement, particularly in New Delhi and Central Delhi areas
  • Necessity to maintain public order and safety during the specified period
• The order has been issued in accordance with the legal provisions to maintain public order and prevent any potential disruption to peace and tranquility in the affected areas.

What is Section 163 of BNSS?

• About:
  • Section 163 of BNSS deals with the power to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
  • Previously it was provided under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 CrPC.
  • Section 163 gives power to Magistrates to issue immediate preventive orders in urgent cases where there is sufficient ground to prevent obstruction, danger to human life, public disturbance, or riots, allowing such orders to be directed at individuals, specific areas, or the general public for up to two months, with the State Government having the authority to extend this period by up to six additional months.
• Competent Authorities:
  • The following authorities are empowered to issue orders under Section 163:
  • District Magistrate
  • Sub-divisional Magistrate
  • Any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government
• Pre-requisites:
  • Substantive Requirements:
    • Sufficient ground for proceeding
    • Necessity for immediate prevention or speedy remedy
    • Written order stating material facts
  • Procedural Requirement:
    • Service of order in accordance with Section 153 BNSS.
• Scope and Purpose:
  • Preventive Measures: The order may direct a person to:
    • Abstain from certain acts
    • Take specific actions regarding property in their possession or management
  • Intended Outcomes: Prevention or tendency to prevent:
    • Obstruction, annoyance, or injury to lawfully employed persons
    • Danger to human life, health, or safety
    • Disturbance of public tranquility
    • Riots or affrays
• Procedural Flexibility:
  • Ex Parte Orders: May be passed in cases of:
    • Emergency
    • Circumstances not admitting timely service of notice
• Applicability:
  • Orders may be directed to:
    • Individuals
    • Persons residing in a specific place or area
    • Public generally when frequenting locations
• Temporal Limitations:
  • Initial Duration:
    • Maximum period of two months from the date of issuance
  • Extension Provision:
    • State Government may extend by notification
    • Additional duration not exceeding six months
    • Extension conditional upon necessity to prevent:
      • Danger to human life, health, or safety
      • Riots or affrays
• Modification and Rescission:
  • Magisterial Powers:
    • Suo motu or on application by aggrieved person
    • Authority to rescind or alter orders by:
      • The issuing Magistrate
      • Any superior Magistrate
      • Predecessor-in-office
  • State Government Powers:
    • Authority to rescind or alter its own extension orders
    • May act suo motu or on application
• Procedural Safeguards:
  • Hearing Requirement: Upon receiving application for modification/rescission:
    • Early opportunity of appearance must be afforded
    • Applicant may appear in person or through advocate
  • Reasoned Order:
    • In case of rejection (whole or partial): Reasons must be recorded in writing

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Gajendra Singh Shekhawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors. has held that once the report has been filed by the Police officer no further investigation can be conducted without the prior permission of the Trial Court.

What was the Background of the Gajendra Singh Shekhawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors. Case?

• In the present case, the First information Report (FIR) was filed against the appellant under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT).
• The Rajasthan High Court ordered that no prima facie case has been formed against the appellant based on the chargesheet presented before it.
• After hearing further, the adjournment was granted by the Rajasthan High Court as the respondent asked for time to provide a supplementary chargesheet.
• On resumed hearing it was stated by the respondent counsel that after investigation, no offence is found to have been committed by the petitioner.
• The respondent counsel further stated that no supplementary chargesheet was filed as allegations made against him were found to be completely unsubstantiated.
• The present application was filed by the appellant to quash the FIR filed against him.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Rajasthan High Court observed that no culpability of commission of any offence is attributable to the petitioner.
• An additional observation was also made by the Rajasthan High Court that in View of Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) once the report has been filed under Section 193 (3) of BNSS no further investigation can be conducted without the prior permission of the Trial Court.
• Based on the above observation the Rajasthan High Court allowed the present petition and quashed the FIR against the appellant.

What is Section 193 of BNSS?

• Section 193 of BNSS deals with report of police officer on completion of investigation.
• This section was earlier covered under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
• It states that:
  • Sub section (1) states that the investigation under this chapter to be completed without any unnecessary delay.
  • Sub section (2) states that the investigation in relation to an offence under sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) or under sections 4, 6, 8 or section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(POCSO) shall be completed within two months from the date on which the information was recorded by the officer in charge of the police station.
  • Sub section (3) states that
  • As per Clause (i) after investigation the Police officer shall forward the Report to the magistrate to take cognizance of the offence which shall include:
    • the names of the parties
    • the nature of the information
    • the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case
    • whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
    • whether the accused has been arrested
    • whether the accused has been released on his bond or bail bond
    • whether the accused has been forwarded in custody under section 190
    • whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 or section 71 of the BNS.
    • the sequence of custody in case of electronic device
  • As per Clause (ii) the victim to be informed by the Police about the progress of the investigation within a period of 90 days.
  • As per Clause (iii) the Police officer shall also inform the actions taken by him after the information was given to him regarding commission of offence.
  • Sub section (4) states that when a superior officer is appointed by general or special orders the Report to be submitted through him to the Magistrate and he may also direct the police officer in charge to make further investigation.
  • Sub section (5) states that when a report forwarded shows that an accused has been released on bail or bond the magistrate may make an order for discharge of the same as he thinks fit.
  • Sub section (6) states that additional documents to be submitted by the Police officer to the magistrate when the investigation is conducted under Section 190 of the BNSS as:
    • all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation
    • the statements recorded under section 180 of BNSS of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.
  • Sub section (7) states that if the Police officer thinks that certain part of the document is not in the interest of justice, he may indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.
  • Sub section (8) states that the police officer shall also furnish such number of copies of the police report along with other documents duly indexed to the Magistrate for supply to the accused as required under section 230 of BNSS. Communication by electronic means shall deemed to be duly served.
  • Sub section (9) states that a Police officer may investigate further after submitted the report to the magistrate if he finds any further evidences subject to prior permission of the Trial Court and that investigation to be completed within a period of 90 days which may be extended with the permission of the Court.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that suit under Section 92 of CPC can be filed in the Court of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction that is District Judge and not any other Court.

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of Jayantri Prasad v. Shri Ram Janki Lakshman Ji Virajman Mandir, Pratapgarh Thru Ram Shiromani Pandey and 2 others

What was the Background of Jayantri Prasad v. Shri Ram Janki Lakshman Ji Virajman Mandir, Pratapgarh Thru Ram Shiromani Pandey and 2 others Case?

• It is the case of the plaintiff that Shri Ram Laksham Janikiji Virajman’ Temple had been constructed by their donations.
• The plaintiffs filed the suit under Section 91 and Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) for a decree of declaration and perpetual injunction where the petitioners prayed for a direction for constituting an eleven member committee and for appointing him as Manager for managing Ram Janki Mandir.
• The Trial Court held that the present suit does to fall within the purview of Section 92 of CPC as:
  • The plaintiffs have not filed any trust deed and there is no pleading as to who is the trust or manager of the trust.
  • No bye-laws/Rules of the trust have been brought on record.
  • There is no pleading regarding any public charities being administered by the property in dispute.
  • Therefore, the Civil Judge concluded that the relief sought by the plaintiff does not fall within the purview of Section 91 and Section 92 CPC and dismissed the suit as not maintainable at the admission stage.
• Thus, petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) challenging the above order passed by the Learned Civil Judge.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• There are two issues that the Court considered in this case:
  • Whether a suit under Section 92 of CPC can be filed in this case?
  • Whether the suit can be admitted by the Civil Judge?
• With Respect to Issue (i):
  • Section 92 of CPC relates to public charities.
  • The Court held that the phrase ‘Religious Endowments’ is not defined in the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (the Act).
  • It was observed that Section 14, 15 and 18 of the Act are relevant to the present dispute.
  • From the combined reading of Section 92 CPC and the other provisions the Court held that it is manifestly clear that a suit under Section 92 of CPC can be filed in case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature also.
  • Thus, the Court held that the suit cannot be refused only because of the absence of a trust deed.
  • Thus, the High Court held that the Learned Trial Court has committed a patent illegality in dismissing the suit at the admission stage for reasons that the plaintiff has not filed any trust deed and the plaint does not disclose the identity of the trustees or the Manager.
• With Respect to Issue (ii):
  • Section 92 of CPC and Section 2 of the Religious Endowment Act, 1863 (REA) provide that the suit under this provision can be filed “in the Principal Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in this behalf by the State Government.”
  • The Court went on to analyze whether a “Civil Judge” would constitute the Principal Court of original jurisdiction.
  • The Court analysed the following provisions:
    • Section 3 (17) of the General Clauses Act provides that the “District Judge” shall mean the Judge of a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction but shall not include a High Court in the exercise of its ordinary or extraordinary original civil jurisdiction.
    • Section 2 (4) of CPC defines the term ‘district’.
    • Section 3 of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 provides for classes of Courts.
  • The Court after analyzing the provisions and the case laws held that the Court of the District Judge is the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
  • Therefore, the Court of District Judge is the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
• Thus, the Court held that the suit under Section 92 of CPC and Section 2 of REA in the State of Uttar Pradesh can only be filed in the Court of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, that is the Court of District Judge.
• Therefore, the Court held that the Civil Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed under Section 92 of CPC or under the provisions of REA.

What is Section 92 of CPC?

About:

• Section 92 of CPC provides for procedure for filing a civil suit by a Charitable trust against a third party.
• This Section protects the public’s interests in public trusts and charities.

Constituents of Section 92 (1):

• Conditions When the Suit can be Filed:
  • In case of alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or
  • Where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of trust.
• The Persons by Whom Suit May be Instituted:
  • The Advocate General
  • Or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court
• The Suit can be Filed in:
  • The principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or
  • Any other Court empowered in this behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree
• Purposes for which Suit can be Filed:
  • Removing any trustee
  • Appointing a new trustee
  • Vesting any property in a trustee
  • directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property
  • directing accounts and inquiries
  • declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust
  • authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged
  • settling a scheme
  • granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.

Constituents of Section 92 (2):

• Section 92 (2) of CPC provides that any suit of the form referred to under Section 92 (1) of CPC can only be instituted in the manner prescribed therein.
  • Section 92 (1) does not apply in following cases:
    • In cases provided under The Religious Endowments Act, 1863, or
    • By any corresponding law in force in the territories which immediately before 1st November 1956 were comprised in Part B states.

Constituents of Section 92 (3):

• Section 92 (3) of CPC provides for the alteration of original purposes of a trust (constructive or express) created for public purposes.
  • It provides that the Court can allow the property or income of such trust or any portion thereof to be applied cypress
  • The above can happen in following circumstances:
    • where the original purposes of the trust, in whole or in part,
      • have been, as far as may be, fulfilled;
      • cannot be carried out at all, or cannot be carried out according to the directions given in the instrument creating the trust or, where there is no such instrument, according to the spirit of the trust
    • where the original purposes of the trust provide a use for a part only of the property available by virtue of the trust;
    • where the property available by virtue of the trust and other property applicable for similar purposes can be more effectively used in conjunction with, and to that end can suitably be made applicable to any other purpose, regard being had to the spirit of the trust and its applicability to common purposes
    • where the original purposes, in whole or in part, were laid down by reference to an area which then was, but has since ceased to be, a unit for such purposes
    • where the original purposes, in whole or in part, have, since they were laid down:
      • been adequately provided for by other means
      • ceased, as being useless or harmful to the community
      • ceased to be, in law, charitable,
      • ceased in any other way to provide a suitable and effective method of using the property available by virtue of the trust, regard being had to the spirit of the trust

What are the Landmark Judgments on Section 92 of CPC?

• Bishwanath v. Sri Tahkur Radha Ballabhji (1967)
  • The Court held that in order to invoke Section 92 of CPC three requirements must be met:
    • Firstly, the trust was established for charitable or public purposes
    • Secondly, there was a breach of trust
    • Lastly, a court order was required to be followed in the administration of such a trust.
• Janki Prasad v. Kuber Singh (1963)
  • The mere absence of a written document or mere absence of the entries is not a conclusive proof of the non-existence of a trust
  • A valid trust may be created not only by means of a written document but also orally but what is required in the case of oral trust is that the property must have been treated to be an endowed property and it must have been used towards charitable and religious purposes for which the trust was created.