List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of K. Bharthi Devi and Anr. V. State of Telangana & Anr. has held that criminal cases having civil nature should be quashed when the dispute between the parties is settled. 

What was the Background of the K. Bharthi Devi and Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr. Case? 

• In the present case, the case was filed by the bank (respondent No.2) against the appellants. 
• The Bank contended that the appellants took a group loan and failed to pay the due interest on it due to which the group account of appellants turned as Non-Performing Asset. 
• The case was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) for recovery of loan amount by the bank. 
• The bank later came to know that the Title documents submitted by the appellants were not true during the pendency of the case before DRT. 
• The complaint was filed against the appellants under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 before the Crime Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by the bank.  
• Based on the complaint the chargesheet was filed by the CBI. 
• During the pendency of the case before DRT the appellants approached the bank for settlement of dispute by offering it Rs. 3.8 Crores and the same was accepted by the bank. 
• The Bank also issued a no dues certificate against the amount paid by the appellants. 
• Based on this the appellants filed the application before the Telangana High Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC) seeking quashing of the charge-sheet filed before the trial Court by the CBI. 
• The case pending before the DRT was disposed of as the settlement was done between the parties. 
• The High Court, however, dismissed the appellants' application for quashing of chargesheet and held that the use of fraudulent, fake and forged documents is the crime against society. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellants filed the present petition before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court in this case observed that: 
  • There are certain offences which bear civil nature arises out of civil dispute such offences can be compounded even if they are not compoundable. 
  • The quashing of criminal proceedings is decided on a case-to-case basis considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 
  • The cases which do not possess criminal nature and arise out of civil dispute and where the conviction of accused is remote, continuation of such cases would be oppressive against the accused and may cause miscarriage of justice. 
    • As in the present case a dispute was already settled between the parties. 
  • This was the fit case wherein the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quash the criminal proceedings. 
• Therefore, the Supreme court allowed the present appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants. 

What is the Landmark Judgement referred to in the K. Bharthi Devi and Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr. Case? 

• Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012): 
  • In this case it was observed that certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavor having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, the High Court would be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings, even if the offences have not been made compoundable 

What is Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)?   

About:

• This section was earlier covered under Section 482 of CrPC.   
• Section 528 of BNSS deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court.   
• It states that nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.   
• This section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts, and it only recognizes the fact that High Courts have inherent powers. 

Cases where the Inherent Powers of the High Court cannot be Invoked: 

• In the following cases, the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked: 
  • To quash the proceedings in police investigation consequent upon a FIR made to the police in a cognizable case; to interfere with the statutory rights of the police to investigate a cognizable case. 
  • To quash an investigation just because the FIR does not disclose any offence when investigation could be done based on other materials. 
  • To enquire about the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. 
  • Inherent jurisdiction can be invoked only against final orders and not against interlocutory orders. 
  • To order stay of arrest of accused during investigation. 

What are the Landmark Judgements Based on Powers of High Court to Quash the Proceedings? 

• Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State [NCT of Delhi] (2018):  
  • In this case the Court held that the High Court has the power to interfere in the proceedings and quash the FIR against the accused even after filing the chargesheet.  
• Jitha Sanjay and Others v. State of Kerala and Other (2023): 
  • The Kerela High Court in the present case highlighted that courts can quash criminal proceedings if they are found to be vexatious, frivolous, or motivated by an ulterior motive, even if the FIR contains false allegations of an offense. The court observed that complainants with extraneous motives can craft FIRs to include necessary ingredients.  
• Sh. Anupam Gahoi v. State (Govt. of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr (2024):  
  • The Delhi High Court recently quashed a matrimonial case where a husband had sought to invalidate an FIR filed by his wife in 2018 under the CrPC and BNSS.  
• Mama Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand (2024):  
  • In this case it was held that even if the charge sheet had been filed, the Court could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not based on the FIR, charge sheet and other document. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court struck down the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017, as unconstitutional, ruling it violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) by unjustly singling out Khalsa University among 16 private universities in Punjab without reasonable classification.  

• Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan held in the matter of Khalsa University and Another v. The State of Punjab and Another. 
• The Court observed the need for equal treatment under the law, rejecting the state's concerns over the university's character as insufficient grounds for discrimination. 

What was the Background of Khalsa University and Another v. The State of Punjab and Another Case? 

• The Khalsa College Charitable Society has existed since 1892.  
• In 2010, Punjab introduced the Punjab Private Universities Policy.  
• In 2010, Khalsa College Charitable Society submitted a proposal to establish a private university.  
• On 5th March 2011, the Punjab government issued a Letter of Intent for the university 
• The Khalsa University Act was passed on 7th November 2016, and published on 17th November 2016.  
• Khalsa University began operations, offering admission to 26 programs.  
• 215 students were admitted for the 2016-17 academic session 
• On 18th January 2017, the University informed the government about enacting statutes in line with policy requirements.  
• In April and May 2017, the state government restricted the university from starting admissions until statute approval from the State Government. 
• On 30th May 2017, the government promulgated an ordinance repealing the 2016 Khalsa University Act. 
• The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act 2017 was subsequently passed and published on 17th July 2017. 
• Legal Challenges: 
  • The university and society filed a writ petition challenging:  
    • The communications restricting admissions. 
    • The ordinance repealed the original act. 
    • The Repeal Act itself. 
  • The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed their petition on 1st November 2017: 
    • The matter was then appealed to the Supreme Court.  
    • The state's concern about the university's impact on Khalsa College's character. 
    • The relationship between UGC regulations and the university's operations. 
    • The broader context of private university regulation in Punjab. 
  • Legal Issues: 
    • The case centered on whether singling out Khalsa University among 16 private universities was legally valid. 
    • The constitutionality of the Repeal Act was questioned under Article 14 of the Constitution 
    • The challenge focused on whether there was a reasonable classification for treating Khalsa University differently

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court held that while legislation targeting a single entity is permissible, it must satisfy the dual test of reasonable classification and demonstrable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. 
• The Court emphasized that special circumstances warranting such targeted legislation must be evidenced through legislative materials, parliamentary debates, and prior enquiries; mere assertion without substantiation is insufficient. 
• Upon examination, the Court found no compelling emergent situation or reasonable classification to justify discriminating against Khalsa University among 16 private universities in the State, thereby rendering the Repeal Act violative of Article 14. 
• The Court determined that the State's contention regarding potential damage to Khalsa College's character and pristine glory was unfounded, particularly given the physical evidence and the appellant's assurance of non-affiliation. 
• The Repeal Act was found to suffer from manifest arbitrariness as it imposed excessive and disproportionate restrictions based on a non-existent foundation. 
• Consequently, the Court struck down the impugned Repeal Act as unconstitutional, thereby reviving the 2016 Act.

What is Article 14 of Indian Constitution?

About: 

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 affirms the fundamental right of “equality before the law” and “equal protection of law” to all persons. 
• The first expression “equality before law” is of England origin and the second expression “equal protection of law” has been taken from the American Constitution. 
• Equality is a cardinal principle enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India as its primary objective. 
• It is a system of treating all human beings with fairness and impartiality. 
• It also establishes a system of non-discrimination based on grounds mentioned in Article 15 of the Constitution of India. 

Test for Reasonable Classification: 

• Article 14 forbids class legislation however, it does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends. 
• Two conditions were demarcated in the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952): 
  • There must be a presence of intelligible differentia, where application of law must not be universal upon each human. 
  • The differentia applied must align with the cardinal objective of the state. 

How Acts are Repealed in India? 

Definition And Concept: 

• Law repeal is a formal process to nullify an existing law when Parliament determines the legislation is no longer necessary or relevant. 
• Repeal can be:  
  • Complete (entire law nullified) 
  • Partial (specific provisions nullified) 
  • Limited (nullified only to the extent of contravention with other laws) 
• Some laws may include "sunset clauses" - predetermined dates after which they automatically cease to exist. 

Constitutional Basis: 

• The authority for repeal derives from Article 245 of the Constitution, which:  
  • Grants Parliament the power to enact laws. 
  • Implicitly provides the power to repeal them through the Repealing and Amending Act. 
• Historical precedent was established in 1950 when the first Repealing Act nullified 72 existing laws. 

Methods of Repeal: 

• Legislative Route:  
  • Bill introduced in Parliament 
  • Passed by both Houses 
  • Receives Presidential assent 
  • Single legislation can repeal multiple laws simultaneously 

Ordinance Route:  

• Promulgated for immediate effect. 
• It must be replaced by parliamentary legislation within six months. 
• If ordinance lapses without parliamentary approval, repealed law may be revived. 

Procedural Considerations: 

• Legislative Competence:  
  • Repealing power mirrors law-making power 
  • Subject must fall within appropriate legislative list 
• Documentation Requirements:  
  • Clear identification of law(s) to be repealed 
  • Specification of extent of repeal 
  • Addressing consequential amendments 
• Implementation Process:  
  • Official gazette notification 
  • Update of legal databases 
  • Communication to relevant authorities 

Legal Implications: 

• Upon successful repeal:  
  • Law ceases to have prospective effect 
  • Past actions under repealed law generally remain valid 
  • Pending proceedings may continue if saving clauses exist 
• Transitional Considerations:  
  • May require interim provisions 
  • Might need stakeholder consultation 
  • Could necessitate compensation mech 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra gave slew of directions prohibiting caste-based discrimination in prisons.                    

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Sukanya Shantha v Union of India & Ors. 

What was the Background of Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors. Case? 

• The petitioner in this case is a journalist, Sukanya Shantha who wrote an article “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System”. 
• The article highlighted the discrimination based on caste in the prisons in the country. 
• The petitioner by way of the present writ had come to the Court to seek directions to repeal the offending provisions in the State prison manuals. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The impugned provisions in this writ petition were as follows: 
  • Prison Act, 1984: The Court clarified that this legislation was not under challenge, but this Act helped in understanding the background of prison manuals/rules. 
  • Prison Manuals/Rules: There were several prison manuals and rules under challenge in this case including Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 2022, Madhya Pradesh Jail Manual, 1987 among several others.   
• The Court in this case allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions: 
  • The Court held that the impugned provisions are unconstitutional as being violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and Article 23 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
    • The Court directed all the States and Union Territories to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules in accordance with this judgment within 3 months. 
  • Further, the Union Government was also directed to address caste-based discrimination in the Model Prison Manual, 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 within a period of three months. 
  • References to “habitual offenders” in the prison manuals/Model Prison Manual shall be in accordance with the definition provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective State legislatures, subject to any constitutional challenge against such legislation in the future.  
  • The “caste” column in undertrial/convicts’ prisoners’ register inside the prisons shall be deleted. 
  • The Police is directed to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024) to ensure that members of Denotified Tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrest 
  • The Court took suo moto cognizance of this discrimination in jails and listed the case as In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India. The Registry was also directed to list the case within 3 months. 
  • The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and the Board of Visitors formed under the Model Prison Manual 2016 shall jointly conduct regular inspections to identify whether caste-based discrimination or similar discriminatory practices, as highlighted in this judgment, are still taking place inside prisons. Further, the report regarding the same shall be filed.

What is Caste Based Discrimination in the Prison Manuals ?

• The Court in this case observed that the colonial administrators adopted discriminatory social practices inside the prison not to upset the oppressor castes. 
• Caste was used as a ground for differentiating prisoners. 
• The Court overruled the explanation rendered by the Madras High Court in the case of C. Arul v. The Secretary to Government (2014) where the High Court accepted the explanation that “the inmates belonging to different castes are housed in different blocks, in order to avoid any community clash, which is prevailing common in Tirunelveli and Tuticorin Districts.” 
• The Court held that it is the responsibility of the prison administration to maintain discipline inside the prisons without resorting to measures that promote caste-based discrimination. 
• The Court observed that adopting the logic accepted by the High Court would be similar to the argument given in the United States to legalize race-based segregation: separate but equal.  
• The Court held that the above philosophy has no place under the Indian Constitution. 
• The Court held that the discrimination of the inmates on the basis of “habit”, “custom”, “superior mode of living” and “natural tendency to escape” etc is unconstitutionally vague and indeterminate.  
• Only such classification that proceeds from an objective inquiry of factors such as work aptitude, accommodation needs, special medical and psychological needs of the prisoner would pass constitutional muster. 
• It is to be noted that the Prison manuals in question here used phrases such as “menial” jobs to be performed by castes “accustomed to perform such duties”. 
• Thus, the Court held that the classification based on obsolete understanding of caste lacks a rational nexus with the correctional objectives of classification in prisons.  
• Thus, the Court held that the Rules that discriminate based on caste are violative of Article 14 on account of invalid classification and subversion of substantive equality.

What is the Practice of Untouchability Envisaged in the Manuals? 

• It is to be noted that Article 17 of COI prohibits untouchability. 
• The Court observed that the notion that an occupation is considered as “degrading or menial” is an aspect of the caste system and untouchability. 
• It was observed that the reference to “scavenger class” is a practice of caste system and untouchability. 
• The provision in the manual that the food should be cooked by “suitable caste” reflects notions of untouchability where certain castes are considered suitable for cooking or handling kitchen work and others are not. 
• Also, the division of work based on caste is a practice of untouchability that is prohibited under the Constitution.

How are the Members of Denotified Tribes Discriminated Against by the Prison Manuals? 

• The tendency of treating denotified tribes as habitual to crime or having bad character reinforces stereotype against them and excludes them from participation in social life.  
• The discrimination against the denotified tribes was reaffirmed by the prison Manuals. 
• The term ‘habitual offender’ has been defined by the states under the habitual offenders laws adopted. Most of the States defined ‘habitual offender’ as a person who has been sentenced on conviction for at three occasions to a substantive term of imprisonment for any or more of the specified offences.  
• However, some prison manuals referred to ‘habitual offender’ to mean members of denotified or wandering tribes. 
• For instance, Rule 404 of the West Bengal Manual provides that a convict overseer may be appointed to be a night guard provided that “he does not belong to any class that may have a strong natural tendency to escape, such as men of wandering tribes”. 
• Thus, the Court directed the Union and State Government to make necessary changes in the prison manuals/rules in line with the judgment.

How is Caste Based Discrimination Linked with Article 21 of COI? 

• Article 21 of COI provides that no person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 
• Article 21 envisages the growth of individual personality. Caste prejudices hinders the growth of personality of a person. 
• When the caste prejudices manifest in institutional settings like the prison, they create further restrictions on personal development and reformation of marginalized communities. 
• When prisoners from marginalized communities are subjected to discriminatory practices based on caste, their inherent dignity is violated. 
• Hence, the Court held that the provisions providing for caste based discrimination are violative of Article 21 of the COI.