List of Current Affairs

Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Chhinder Singh v. State has held that for the charge under Section 3 (1) (r) of the ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the insult must be done in public place. 

What was the Background of the Chhinder Singh v. State Case? 

• In the present case, the complainant filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the same was forwarded to the Police station for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC). 
• The First Information Report (FIR) was registered, and the inquiry was initiated where a negative report was filed by the Police. 
• The complainant filed a protest petition against the report and statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 200 and 202 of CrPC. 
• It was argued that the petitioner had insulted him using derogatory terms and questioned his credibility regarding his affidavits 
• The Trial court took cognizance under Section 3 (1) (r) of the ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.  
• Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Special Judge which was dismissed. 
• Aggrieved by the same the present petition was filed before the Rajasthan High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Rajasthan High Court observed that: 
  • As per Section 3 (1) (r) of the ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 when a person who does not belong to St/SC insults or humiliate a person belonging to ST/SC at public place shall be liable for punishment. 
  • In the present case the complainant himself visited the petitioner for verifying his affidavits and the statements recorded does not imply that the remarks were made in Public. 
  • It was subsequently testified that three witnesses were present at the time when the remarks were made but no such mention was made when the complaint was filed. 
  • The Rajasthan High Court referred to certain judgements of the higher courts where it was held that to hold a decision against the negative report the Court must give reasons in writing while in the present case trial court failed to do so. 
• The Rajasthan High Court, therefore, allowed the present petition and dismissed the order of the Trial Court. 

What is ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? 

About the Act: 

• SC/ST Act 1989 is an Act of Parliament enacted to prohibit discrimination against SC & ST communities members and prevent atrocities against them. 
• The Act was passed in Parliament of India on 11th September 1989 and notified on 30 January 1990. 
• The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper castes. 
• The Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. 

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2015: 

• This Act was amended in the year 2015 for the purpose of making the act more stringent with the following provisions: 
  • Recognition was given to more instances of atrocities as crimes against SCs and STs. 
  • It added several new offences in Section 3 and renumbered the entire section since the recognized crime almost doubled. 
  • The Act added Chapter IVA Section 15A (the rights of victims and witnesses), and defined dereliction of duty by officials and accountability mechanisms more precisely. 
  • It provided for the establishment of exclusive special courts and special public prosecutors. 
  • In the context of public servants at all levels this Act defined the term willful negligence. 

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2018: 

• In the case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Parliament’s 2018 Amendment to the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The Salient features of this Amendment Act are as follows: 
  • It added Section 18A to the original Act. 
  • It delineates specific crimes against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as atrocities and describes strategies and prescribes punishments to counter these acts. 
  • It identifies what acts constitute “atrocities” and all offences listed in the Act are cognizable. The police can arrest the offender without a warrant and start an investigation into the case without taking any orders from the court. 
  • The Act calls upon all the states to convert an existing sessions court in each district into a Special Court to try cases registered under it and provides for the appointment of Public Prosecutors/Special Public Prosecutors for conducting cases in special courts. 
  • It creates provisions for states to declare areas with high levels of caste violence to be “atrocity-prone” and to appoint qualified officers to monitor and maintain law and order. 
  • It provides for the punishment for willful neglect of duties by non-SC/ST public servants. 
  • It is implemented by the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations, which are provided due central assistance. 

Landmark Cases: 

• Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & ors. v. State of Rajasthan (2006): 
  • In the present case it was held that when a petition is followed by a negative report the magistrate, while allowing the petition must discuss the negative report and apply judicial mind before and pass an order with sufficient reason to do so. 
• Sampat Singh And Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1992): 
  • In the present case the Supreme Court held that before disagreeing with the negative report the magistrate must give sufficient reasons for doing so. 

What is Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act? 

• Section 3 of this Act deals with punishments for offences atrocities. 
• Section 3(1)(r) states that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News?

A bench of Justice SG Chapalgaonkar and Justice Vibha Kankanwadi held that anything done in the police station is absolutely not included in Section 3 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA).  

• The Bombay High Court held this in the case of Subhash Rambhau Athare v. The State of Maharashtra. 

What was the Background of Subhash Rambhau Athare v. The State of Maharashtra Case? 

• The present case pertains to a quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) filed at Pathardi Police Station for offence punishable under Section 120B and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA). 
• The Applicant has alleged that the FIR is false and concocted. 
• The Applicant is a police constable posted in Mumbai police, however his native place is Pathardi. 
• Three persons trespassed the house of the applicant on 21st April 2022 when the applicants were not at home, however the mother was at home. 
• These three persons had assaulted and threatened as well as outraged the modesty of the mother. 
• The Pathardi police station however registered only non-cognizable case on 26th April 2022. 
• When the applicant inquired as to why only NC case was registered, the Investigating Officer abused him in filthy language and gave ill-treatment to him. 
• The Applicant was called by the informant in the alleged FIR on 2nd May 2022 and threatened him to withdraw the complaint filed by the mother and also threatened to lodge a complaint under the Atrocities Act. 
• The Applicant had made audio recording in respect of the said threat and made complaint to Director General of Police. 
• The case of the applicant is that the present FIR has been lodged. 
• The applicant has alleged that the FIR is itself based on concoction and falsity. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The first fact to be considered here is that the entire episode allegedly took place in the police station. 
• The police in this case invoked the OSA. 
• The Court observed that Section 2 (8) of the OSA defines “prohibited place” and the police station is not included in this definition. 
• The Court further held that anything done in the police station is absolutely not included in Section 3 of OSA. Hence, the Court concluded that the ingredients of the said section are not attracted at all. 
• The Court further left it to the Court concerned to see if the offences under Section 120B and Section 506 of IPC are made out or not. 
• Thus, the Court partly allowed the application.

What is the Official Secrets Act, 1923?

About: 

• The origins of this Act can be traced to the British colonial period. 
• The Act is aimed at countering espionage, sedition and other potential threats to the integrity of the nation. 
• The Act makes spying, sharing ‘secret’ information, unauthorised use of uniforms, interference with the police or armed forces in prohibited/restricted areas among others, punishable offences. 
• This is the main statute that vitally affect national security: 
  • Spying or entry into a prohibited place etc 
  • Wrongful communication 
  • Harboring spies 
  • Unauthorised use of uniforms, falsification of reports 
  • Interference with the police or military, near a prohibited place 
• A person who is guilty may face a jail term of upto 14 years.

Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923: 

• Actions attracting penalty- 
  • This Section provides that the acts enumerated must be done for the purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State. 
  • The acts enumerated that are made punishable are: 
    • Approaches, inspects, passes over or is in the vicinity of, or enters, any prohibited place; or 
    • Makes any sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy; or 
    • Obtains, collects, records or publishes or communicates to any other person any secret official code or pass word, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy or which relates to a matter the disclosure of which is likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State or friendly relations with foreign States. 
• Penalties for above action- 
  • Where the offence is committed in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, mine, minefield, factory, dockyard, camp, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Government or in relation to any secret official code, the penalty is imprisonment up to fourteen years. 
  • In other cases, the penalty is up to three years.

Other Provisions under this Act:

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court recently granted relief to a female Sarpanch disqualified on technical grounds, marks the discriminatory attitudes towards women in rural governance. The Court emphasized the seriousness of removing an elected representative, particularly a woman in a reserved position, pointing to systemic biases within administrative processes that challenge women's authority in leadership roles.  

• Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan held this in the matter of Manisha Ravindra Panpatil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.  

What was the Background of Manisha Ravindra Panpatil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Case? 

• Manisha Ravindra Panpatil was elected as the Sarpanch (village head) of Gram Panchayat, Vichkheda in Jalgaon District, Maharashtra in February 2021. 
• After her election, some villagers (referred to as private respondents) filed a disqualification petition against her. 
• The grounds for disqualification were that she was allegedly residing with her mother-in-law in a house built on government land. 
• Ms. Panpatil contested these allegations, stating that:  
  • She lived separately with her husband and children in a rented accommodation 
  • The house in question was in such poor condition that it couldn't be inhabited 
• The local Collector issued an order disqualifying her from continuing as Sarpanch. 
• Ms. Panpatil appealed this decision to the Divisional Commissioner, who confirmed the Collector's order. 
• She then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) challenging these orders. 
• The High Court dismissed her petition on technical grounds on 3rd August 2023. 
• Following this, Ms. Panpatil appealed to the Supreme Court of India through a Special Leave Petition. 
• It's worth noting that there were no objections raised about land encroachment when she initially filed her nomination papers for the Sarpanch position.

Special Leave Petition

• Special Leave Petitions in India (SLP) holds a prime place in the judicial system of India. 
• The Supreme Court is empowered to entertain SLPs only in cases when any substantial question of law is involved. 
• Article 136 of the Indian Constitution vests the Supreme Court of India, with this special power to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment or order or decree in any matter or cause, passed by any Court/Tribunal in the territory of India.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court identified this as a case where village residents were unable to accept a woman as their elected Sarpanch and were resistant to following directives from a female leader. 
• The Court noted that the private respondents, finding no professional misconduct, resorted to casting aspersions on the appellant to secure her removal from office. 
• The Court observed that government authorities at various levels passed mechanical and summary orders without conducting proper fact-finding exercises to verify the allegations. 
• The Court found no credible or convincing material on record to substantiate the allegations of government land encroachment by the appellant. 
• The Court determined that the removal of an elected representative, especially a woman from a rural area, was treated with unwarranted casualness by the authorities. 
• The Court acknowledged that women who succeed in occupying public offices do so only after significant struggle. 
• The Court found the nature of the allegations and the consequential punishment (removal from office) to be highly disproportionate. 
• The Court emphasized that such discriminatory actions at the grassroots level undermine the country's progress toward gender parity and women's empowerment in public offices. 
• The Court directed that authorities need to sensitize themselves and work towards creating a more conducive atmosphere for women representatives to serve in their elected positions. 
• The Court observed that the treatment of this case was particularly concerning given the broader context of attempting to achieve adequate women representation in elected bodies. 

Landmark Judgments that Change the Course for Women in India   

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): 
  • Defined sexual harassment at workplace and provided guidelines for its prevention. 
  • Made employers responsible for ensuring a safe working environment for women. 
  • Remained the primary law on workplace sexual harassment until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. 
• Mary Roy v. State of Kerala (1986): 
  • Granted Syrian Christian women the right to inherit equal shares in their father's property. 
  • Invalidated the Travancore Christian Succession Act which gave women limited inheritance rights. 
  • Led to significant reforms in personal laws regarding property rights. 
• Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) (Shah Bano case): 
  • Upheld the right of Muslim women to get maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
  • Ruled that Muslim women have the right to maintenance beyond the iddat period. 
  • Sparked nationwide discourse on uniform civil code and personal laws. 
• Laxmi v. Union of India (2014): 
  • Led to stringent regulations on sale of acids and compensation for acid attack victims. 
  • Made acid attack a non-bailable offense. 
  • Required hospitals to provide free treatment to acid attack victims. 
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala (Sabarimala Case, 2018): 
  • Lifted the ban on entry of women of menstruating age into Sabarimala temple 
  • Held that physiological features cannot be a ground for denial of constitutional rights 
  • Emphasized that exclusionary practices violate the right to worship 
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018): 
  • Decriminalized adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
  • Rejected the notion that women are property of their husbands. 
  • Emphasized women's right to sexual autonomy within marriage. 
• Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020): 
  • Granted daughters equal coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family property 
  • Made the right retroactive, applying to living daughters of living coparceners 
  • Corrected the ambiguity created by previous conflicting judgments 
• Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2020): 
  • Granted permanent commission to women officers in the Indian Army 
  • Rejected arguments based on physiological limitations and social norms 
  • Emphasized that denial of equal opportunities to women officers is discriminatory 
• Aprna Bhat v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2021): 
  • The Supreme Court of India addressed problematic bail conditions imposed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a sexual harassment case, where the accused was ordered to visit the victim with a rakhi thread and sweets as part of his bail conditions. 
  • The Court emphasized that such conditions trivialize sexual offenses, perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes, and potentially traumatize victims further by forcing contact with their abusers. 
  • The judgment states comprehensive guidelines for courts across India, directing them to avoid gender stereotyping, patriarchal notions, and any conditions that diminish the gravity of sexual offenses or mandate contact between the accused and the victim. 
  • The Court mandated gender sensitization training for judges, lawyers, and prosecutors, and directed the National Judicial Academy and Bar Council of India to develop appropriate curricula to address these issues in legal education and judicial training. 
  • The judgment highlighted the crucial role of judges as thought leaders and emphasized their duty to remain impartial while being sensitive to gender-related crimes and avoiding language or conditions that could undermine survivors' confidence in the justice system.