List of Current Affairs

Source: Telangana High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji held that Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) and Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) mandates production of accused before the nearest judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.                   

• The Telangana High Court held this in the case of Smt. T. Ramadevi, W/o T. Srinivas Goud v. The State of Telengana, Rep. By it’s Principal Secretary and Others. 

What was the Background of  Smt. T. Ramadevi, W/o T. Srinivas Goud v. The State of Telengana, Rep. By it’s Principal Secretary and Others. Case? 

• The four detenues in this case were accused under Section 406, Section 420 read with Section 120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 5 of Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1996 (TSPDFE). 
• Accused no 3 and 4 were apprehended at 10am on 31st August 2024. 
• After apprehending them the police team went for search of other accused. 
• On 1st August 2024, at around 00:30 hours accused no1, 2 and 6 were found at their residence and the police apprehended them for questioning and at around 1:30 hours on 1st August 2024 they were brought to Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. 
• The arrest was shown on 1st August 2024 at 15:40 hours. 
• After completing all the formalities the detenues were produced before the Judicial Magistrate at his residence on 2nd August 2024 at 12:30 am. 
• There are two substantial question of law in this case: 
  • Whether the period of apprehension by the police authorities before the official arrest being shown is also to be considered for the purpose of fulfilling the requirement of producing the so-called apprehended person before the Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours? 
  • Whether an accused under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1996 (for short ‘TSPDFE Act’) can be produced for the first remand before the nearest Judicial Magistrate or he needs to be presented only before the concerned notified Special Court? 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• With Respect to Issue (i): 
  • It was the case of the petitioner that the period of 24 hours required to be produced before the Judicial Magistrate would start from initial time of apprehension. 
  • The Court took into consideration Section 57 and Section 167 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
  • The Court held that the first line of Section 57 of CrPC refers to the term detention . It however does not use the term “from the time of arrest”. 
  • Thus, the Court held that the period of detention starts from the moment a person is apprehended .  
  • Therefore, the Court conclusively held that 24 hours time is not be calculated from the time of official arrest but from the time he was initially taken into custody. 
  • Thus, in the present case there was a clear violation of Section 57 CrPC. 
• With Respect to Issue (ii): 
  • The Court held that the plain reading of Section 167 (2) of CrPC indicates that the power to remand a person lies with the Judicial Magistrate. 
  • The Court held that on reading Section 167 (2) CrPC with Section 13 (1) and (2) of TSDFE Act it will clear give an indication that TSPDFE Act has not ousted the applicability of CrPC. 
  • The Court further observed that even Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) envisages that every person who is arrested and detained in custody “shall be produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate” within 24 hours of such arrest and detention with exceptions carved out, those which are not applicable in the present case. 
  • Thus, the Court held that the Judicial Magistrate does have competency and jurisdiction to remand the accused.  
• Thus, the Court held that the instant writ of Habeas Corpus petition stands allowed with respect to Accused no. 3 and 4. 

Which Provisions Envisage Production of Accused Within 24 Hours? 

• Section 57 of CrPC 
  • Section 57 of CrPC provides that the person arrested without the warrant shall not be kept in custody for a longer period than is reasonable. 
  • Further, the time period of custody in the absence of special order of Magistrate under Section 167 exceed 24 hours. 
  • While calculating this period of 24 hours the time necessary for journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court shall be excluded. 
  • This provision is reiterated under Section 58 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita, 2023 (BNSS) 
• Article 22 (2) of COI 
  • This provision provides that a person detained in custody should be produced before the nearest Magistrate within the period of twenty four hours of arrest excluding the time of journey.  
  • No Person shall be detained in custody beyond the period above mentioned without the authority of Magistrate. 

What are the Facets of Section 167 of CrPC? 

• Section 167 of CrPC covers: 
  • Procedure when the investigation is not completed within twenty-four hours 
  • Powers of the magistrate 
  • Limitations on the powers of magistrate 
• The provision encircles a timeline for both police custody and judicial custody. 
• Section 167 is invoked when the accused has not been presented before a magistrate within 24 hours of his detention, and his fundamental right as provided by Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 is violated. 
• The Magistrate of second class is not empowered by the High Court to pass an order for the detention of the accused in the custody of the police.

What is the Relevant Provision in BNSS?

• Section 187 (1) provides that: 
  • Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody 
  • It appears that the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours fixed by Section 58 
  • And there are grounds for believing that the information or accusation is well founded 
  • The officer in charge of police station (not below the rank of sub-inspector) shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Magistrate 
  • A copy of entries in the diary and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. 
• Section 187 (2) provides: 
  • The Magistrate to whom the accused is forwarded under this Section 
  • Irrespective of whether he has jurisdiction or not 
  • After taking into consideration whether such person has not been released on bail or his bail has been cancelled 
  • Authorize from time-to-time detention in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit 
  • For a term not exceeding fifteen days in whole, or in parts 
  • At any time during the initial 40 days or 60 days out of detention period of 60 days or 90 days as the case may be as provided in sub-section (3) 
  • and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction. 
• Section 187 (3) provides: 
  • The Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, beyond the period of fifteen days, 
  • if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so 
  • but no Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused person in custody under this sub-section for a total period exceeding: 
    • ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more; 
    • sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence 
  • And on expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXV for the purposes of that Chapter. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Ors. v. M/S Safari Retreats Private Limited and Ors. has outlined the governing principles of interpretation in context of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 

What was the Background of the Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Ors. v. M/S Safari Retreats Private Limited and Ors.  Case? 

• In the present case, the first respondent is a builder who constructs premises and lets out the same. 
• The same applies to CGST based on the rent received by the first respondent since it amounts to the supply of service under the CGST Act. 
• The respondent therefore tried availing the Input tax Credit (ITC) for which he approached the concerned authorities where it was advised to deposit Goods and Service Tax (GST) on rent without deducting ITC because of the exception carved out by Section 17(5)(d) of CGST. 
• The respondent filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court seeking a declaration that Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act and the corresponding provisions of the Orissa Goods and Services Act, 2017 (OGSA) do not apply to the construction of immovable property intended for letting out on rent. 
• It was also submitted in the petition that Section 17(5)(d) of CGST Act is in violation of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 
• The High Court held that the very object of Section 17 of CGST Act is to benefit the assesses. 
• The High Court further held that The High Court held that if the assesses is required to pay GST on the rental income from the mall, it is entitled to ITC on the GST paid on the construction of the mall. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the disputed section of CGST Act. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court in this case made the following observations by applying principles of interpretation of Tax law as: 
  • It is the legislature’s Responsibility to interpret the statute: 
    • It was emphasized by the Supreme Court that the text of the tax statute must be read as it is given without any modifications based on the intent of the legislature. 
    • If the applicability of that statute leads to an absurd result it would be the responsibility of the legislature to interpret the same and not of the court. 
  • Strict Construction approach for interpretation: 
    • If a tax statute has two interpretations, then the one benefiting the taxpayer must be applied. 
    • Tax law must not be interpreted based on the principles of equity and the language of the tax law must be the sole basis for interpretation. 
  • No use of presumptions 
    • While interpretating the tax law no presumptions and assumptions must be applied the sole basis must be the words expressly provided in the statute. 
    • The taxpayer must not be held liable when there is a loophole in the statute to expressly provide for certain laws. 
  • Terms to be understood in the Commercial sense during trade and usage  
    • Where words are not expressly defined, they must not be interpreted based on the definitions provided in other statutes. 
  • Tax provisions where the words are expressly given 
    • Where the literal interpretation of the words results in injustice, such law can be interpreted as to prevent the injustice. 
• The Supreme Court applied the above-mentioned principles of interpretation on Section 17(5)(d) of CGST to interpret applicability of word “plant” on building and held that it requires interpretation on case-to-case basis and remit the case to High court to determine whether the building plays an essential role in supplying services such as renting. 
• The Supreme Court ordered the High Court to apply a test of functionality and essentiality to determine the present petition. 
• However, the Supreme Court rejected the petition challenging the constitution validity of Section 17(5) (d) of CGST Act. 

What is CGST Act?

• CGST Act, 2017 is a key component of the GST regime, which was implemented to streamline the country's indirect tax system.  
• The CGST Act governs the levy and collection of GST on intra-state supply of goods and services by the central government, replacing many previous central indirect taxes such as central excise duty and service tax.  
• It provides the framework for registration of taxpayers, valuation of goods and services, input tax credit mechanism, and various compliance requirements under the GST system.  
• The CGST Act works in coincidence with the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Act and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act to create a unified national market for goods and services.  

What Is Input Taxable Credit?

• Definition:
  • Input Tax Credit is the credit that a business can claim for GST paid on purchase of goods or services used during business.  
• Purpose:  
  • It aims to eliminate the cascading effect of taxes (tax on tax) in the supply chain by allowing businesses to reduce their tax liability.  
• Mechanism:  
  •  When a business pays GST on its inputs (purchases), it can use this amount to offset the GST it owes on its outputs (sales).  
• Eligibility:  
  • To claim ITC, the input goods or services must be used for business purposes and the business must have valid tax invoices from registered suppliers.  
• Benefits:   
  • ITC helps reduce the overall tax burden on businesses and end consumers, promoting a more efficient and competitive market.  
• Restrictions:   
  • There are certain restrictions on claiming ITC, such as for goods used for personal consumption or for specific items as per the GST law.  

What is Section 17 of CGST?  

• Partial Business Use:   
  • When goods or services are used partly for business and partly for other purposes, input tax credit (ITC) is restricted to the portion used for business purposes.  
• Taxable and Exempt Supplies:   
  • For goods or services used partly for taxable supplies (including zero-rated) and partly for exempt supplies, ITC is restricted to the portion attributable to taxable supplies.  
• Exempt Supply Definition:   
  • Includes supplies taxable under reverse charge, securities transactions, land sale, and building sale (subject to exceptions).  
  • Excludes activities specified in Schedule III (except paragraph 5).  
• Banking and Financial Institutions:   
  • Have the option to either comply with subsection (2) or avail 50% of eligible ITC monthly.  
  • The 50% restriction doesn't apply to tax paid on supplies between registered persons with the same PAN.  
• Blocked Credits (ITC not available):   
  • Motor vehicles (with exceptions for specific business uses).   
  • Vessels and aircraft (with exceptions for specific business uses).   
  • General insurance, servicing, repair, and maintenance of motor vehicles, vessels, or aircraft (with exceptions).   
  • Food and beverages, outdoor catering, beauty treatment, health services, cosmetic surgery (with exceptions).   
  • Membership of clubs, health and fitness centers.  
  • Travel benefits to employees (with exceptions).   
  • Works contract services for immovable property construction (except for further supply of such services).  
  • Goods/services for constructing immovable property on own account.  
  •  Goods/services on which tax is paid under composition scheme (Section 10).  
  • Goods/services received by a non-resident taxable person (except imported goods).  
  • Goods/services used for personal consumption.   
  • Goods lost, stolen, destroyed, written off, or disposed of as gifts.   
  • Any tax paid under sections 74, 129, and 130.  
• Government Authority:   
  • The government may prescribe the manner of credit attribution under subsections (1) and (2).  
• Definition of "Plant and Machinery":   
  • Includes apparatus, equipment, and machinery fixed to earth, including foundations and structural supports.  
  • Excludes land, buildings, civil structures, telecommunication towers, and pipelines outside factory premises.  

What is Section 17(5)(d) of CGST?  

• Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act states Input tax credit shall not be available in respect of the following:  
• "(d) goods or services or both received by a taxable person for construction of an immovable property (other than plant or machinery) on his own account including when such goods or services or both are used in the course or furtherance of business."  
  • General Rule: This provision blocks input tax credit for goods or services used in the construction of immovable property.  
  • Exception: The blockage doesn't apply to "plant or machinery".  
  • Scope: It applies even when the construction is used for business purposes.  
  • "On his own account": This phrase suggests the provision applies when the taxable person is constructing for themselves, not when providing construction services to others.  
  • Definition of "Construction": The explanation to this clause defines construction to include re-construction, renovation, additions or alterations or repairs, to the extent of capitalization.  
  • "Plant and Machinery" Definition: As per the explanation to Section 17, this term means apparatus, equipment, and machinery fixed to earth by foundation or structural support that are used for making outward supply of goods or services or both. It includes such foundation and structural supports but excludes land, building or any other civil structures, telecommunication towers, and pipelines laid outside the factory premises. 

Source: Supreme Court     

Why in News? 

Recent Tirupati Temple ghee controversy started when Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister alleged that animal fat, including beef fat and fish oil, was used in preparing sacred laddus (prasadam) during the previous YSRCP government's tenure. The allegations, based on a National Dairy Development Board lab report from July 2024, sparked widespread outrage and led to multiple petitions in the Supreme Court.  

• The Supreme court has constituted an independent Special Investigation Team, replacing the state-appointed SIT, to investigate these sensitive allegations that have affected the sentiments of millions of devotees worldwide. 

What was the Background of Dr Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others? 

• The controversy of Tirupati Laddu centers around allegations of adulterated ghee being used in the preparation of laddus (prasadam) at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple. 
• Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu made public statements on 18th  September, 2024, alleging that animal fat, including beef fat and fish oil, was used in the preparation of laddus during the previous YSRCP government's tenure. 
• The allegations were based on a laboratory report from the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) regarding ghee samples. 
• The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) has internal quality control processes:  
  • Samples are taken from trucks carrying cow ghee upon arrival 
  • Material failing to meet prescribed standards is typically returned to suppliers 
• Following the controversy, the Andhra Pradesh government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) on 26th September, 2024, to investigate the matter. 

Legal Petitions Filed 

• Dr. Subramanian Swamy's Petition  
  • Seeks a court-monitored committee investigation 
  • Requests detailed report on the forensics of the ghee samples 
  • Raises specific questions about sampling methodology and political intervention 
• Suresh Khanderao Chavhanke's Petition  
  • Seeks investigation by a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or High Court Chief Justice 
  • Arguments based on violation of fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution 
  • Requests CBI or independent central agency investigation 
  • Seeks appointment of retired judge to oversee temple management 
• Surjit Singh Yadav's Petition 
  • Filed as President of Hindu Sena 
  • Seeks investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) 
  • Claims the alleged use of animal fat hurt Hindu devotees' sentiments 
• YV Subba Reddy's Petition 
  • Filed by Rajya Sabha MP and ex-TTD Chairman 
  • Seeks independent investigation by Court-monitored Committee or retired judge with domain experts 
  • Highlights TTD's standard operating procedure for ghee testing 
  • Questions the timing of the state government's disclosure of lab reports 
• Dr. Vikram Sampath and Dushyanth Sridhar's Petition 
  • Filed jointly by a historian and spiritual discourser 
  • Seeks to "divest government/bureaucratic hold over temples" 
  • Requests establishment of accountability in Hindu temples managed by government bodies 
• The Key Issue Raised 
  • Verification of whether adulterated ghee was used in prasadam preparation 
  • Timeline of ghee procurement and testing 
  • Authenticity and context of the laboratory report 
  • Compliance with established quality control processes 
  • Potential violations of religious practices and devotees' rights under Article 25 and Article 26 of Indian Constitution,1950. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court noting the potential of the allegations to hurt sentiments of crores of devotees worldwide, constituted an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) to replace the existing state-appointed SIT, emphasizing that an independent body would inspire greater confidence. 
• The Court explicitly clarified that its order should not be construed as a reflection on the credibility of the existing SIT members, stating that the directive was issued solely to assuage the feelings of devotees having faith in the deity. 
• The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, unequivocally stated that it would not permit the Court to be used as a "political battleground" and abstained from making observations on the merits of the allegations and counter-allegations. 
• In structuring the new SIT, the Court directed a composition comprising two CBI officers (nominated by the CBI Director), two officers of the State Police (nominated by the State Government), and one senior official from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), with the investigation to be monitored by the CBI Director. 
• The Court's decision came after considering submissions from various stakeholders, including the Solicitor General of India, who had initially vouched for the competence of the state-appointed SIT while suggesting central monitoring of the investigation. 
• The bench disposed of multiple petitions, including those filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy, ex-TTD Chairman YV Subba Reddy, Suresh Chavhanke, and Dr. Vikram Sampath, through this comprehensive order addressing the investigation of alleged adulterated ghee used in prasadam preparation. 
• While not commenting on the merits of the allegations, the Court clarified that its decision to form an independent SIT was aimed at assuaging the feelings of crores of devotees worldwide and should not be seen as a reflection on the credibility of the existing state SIT members. 

What is Article 25 of Indian Constitution, 1950 ? 

• Article 25 deals with freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion 
• Fundamental rights guaranteed freedom of conscience 
  • Right to profess religion 
    •  Means to declare freely and openly one's faith and belief. 
    • Wearing and carrying kirpans is considered part of professing the Sikh religion. 
  • Right to practice religion 
    •  Performing prescribed religious duties, rites, and rituals 
    •  Exhibiting religious beliefs through prescribed acts 
  • Right to propagate religion 
    • Spreading religious views for others' edification 
    • Limited to persuasion; does not include right to convert others 
• Restrictions and Limitations of Article 25 Subject to: 
  • Public order 
  • Morality 
  • Health 
  • Other provisions of Part III of the Constitution 
• The State can make laws to:  
  • Regulate or restrict economic, financial, political, or other secular activities associated with religious practices  
  • Provide for social welfare and reform  
  • Open Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus 
• For the purposes of opening religious institutions, "Hindus" includes Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists. 
• The reference to Hindu religious institutions also applies to Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist institutions. 
• These rights apply equally to all persons, regardless of their religion. 
• The State's power to make laws in this area is limited to the specific purposes mentioned in the article. 

What is Article 26 of Indian Constitution, 1950 ? 

• Article 26 deals with freedom to manage religious affairs 
• This right applies to:  
  • Every religious denomination 
  • Any section of a religious denomination 
• These rights are subject to:  
  • Public order 
  • Morality 
  • Health 
• Under this article, religious denominations have the right to:  
  • Establish and maintain institutions for:  
    • Religious purposes 
    • Charitable purposes 
  • Manage their own affairs in matters of religion  
  • Own and acquire property:  
    • Movable property 
    • Immovable property 
  • Administer such property in accordance with law 
• The administration of property must be done within the framework of existing laws. 
• This article ensures autonomy for religious groups in managing their internal affairs and assets. 
• The state can impose reasonable restrictions on these rights for the sake of public order, morality, and health. 
• This provision balances religious freedom with the need for regulation in certain areas. 
• It allows religious groups to have control over their institutions and practices while still being subject to general laws.