List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh held that even if the applicant and the deceased were residing as husband and wife the provisions under Section 498A and Section 304B of IPC shall be invoked.            

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of Adarsh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another. 

What was the Background of Adarsh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another Case? 

• The version of Prosecution in this case is that the marriage of deceased has taken place with one Rohit Yadav and there is no evidence to show that she had obtained divorce from Rohit Yadav. 
• The deceased started living with applicant in live in relationship and no marriage had taken place between the deceased and Rohit Yadav. 
• The case was filed against the applicant under Section 498A, 304B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DPA). 
• It was the case of the applicant that it cannot be said that the deceased was legally wedded wife of applicant and thus no prima facie case under Section 304B of IPC is made out. 
• The applicant filed an application under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) for discharge. 
• The same had been rejected and thus an application under 482 of CrPC was preferred against the above order. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court held that it is well settled that while considering the application for discharge the Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not. 
• The Court held that at this stage the Court should not hold mini trial by marshalling evidence. 
• The Court observed that the Apex Court has held that even if it is not proved that the demand of dowry in respect of an invalid marriage is not legally recognizable. 
• Infact the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court has held that in order to attract provisions of Section - 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C., it is sufficient to show that victim woman and accused husband were residing as husband and wife at the relevant point of time. 
• Thus, the Court held that the argument that in order to attract Section 304B and Section 498 A of IPC it is not sufficient to prove that the parties were legally married.   
• Thus, the application under Section 482 of CrPC was dismissed.

What are the Landmark Judgments with Regard to Applicability of Section 498 A and Section 304B of IPC in Live-in Relationships? 

• Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam and Others (2004) 
  • It was observed that the prosecution of bigamy under Section 494 of IPC differs from prosecution under Section 498A and Section 304B of IPC. 
  • For prosecution of bigamy the second marriage has to be a valid marriage as the thrust of the offence is “marrying” during the lifetime of husband  or wife. However, the main thrust of offence under Section 498 A is cruelty and that under Section 304B is dowry death. 
  • The Court held that while interpreting any provision mischief rule can be employed with a view to suppress the mischief that would have surfaced. 
  • Thus, the Court held that the provisions of Section 498A and Section 304B can be employed even when the parties are not legally married.   
• Mohitram v. State of Chhattisgarh (2004) 
  • The Chhattisgarh High Court in this case held that the intention behind inserting the provisions of Section 304B was to prevent the mischief of dowry death whether the marriage in question is valid or not. 
  • It was observed that in order to attract provisions of Section - 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C., it is sufficient to show that victim woman and accused husband were residing as husband and wife at the relevant point of time 

What is the Offence of Subjecting a Woman to Cruelty under Section 498A of IPC ? 

• This Section states that if the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjected such woman towards cruelty would be punished with imprisonment for a term which might extend to 3 years and may also be liable for fine. 
• For the purpose of this Section, “cruelty” means— 
  • Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or 
  • Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 
• The offence under this section is a cognizable, non bailable and non-compoundable offence. 
• It is to be noted that this provision can be found under Section 85 and Section 86 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 
• While Section 85 of BNS provides for the offence and punishment for the offence of committing cruelty against a woman by the husband or relative of the husband, Section 86 of BNS defines cruelty for the purposes of Section 85 of BNS. 

What is the Offence of Dowry Dath under Section 304B of IPC ? 

• The ingredients to be proved to attract the offence of dowry death under Section 304B of IPC are: 
  • death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or her death must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances  
  • such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage  
  • soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband  
  • such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand for dowry. 
• The term dowry as per the provision shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DPA).  
• The punishment for the offence under Section 304B of IPC is imprisonment for a term not less than seven years but which may extend to life imprisonment.  
• This offence is provided under Section 80 of BNS.

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Rakesh Khanna v. Naveen Kumar Aggarwal & Ors has held that the Consumer Commission has the power to issue arrest warrant against the director of the company to hold the company accountable for its non-compliance. 

What was the Background of Rakesh Khanna v. Naveen Kumar Aggarwal & Ors Case? 

• In this matter, Respondent no.1 filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CP), alleging deficiency of services and unfair trade practices by VXL Realtors Pvt. Ltd (Respondent No.4). 
• Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SDCRC) passed a judgement granting relief to the complainant and ordered Respondent No.4 to refund the entire amount to the complainant along with other reliefs. 
• In furtherance to it Respondent No. 1 filed an execution application where a warrant of arrest was issued against the directors (petitioner) of Respondent No.4. 
• The petitioner applied for recall of the order and challenged the order before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). 
• The NCDRC also filed an order against the petitioner and issued a warrant of arrest. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the NCDRC the petitioner filed the present appeal before the Delhi High Court by contenting that: 
  • He was not the director of Respondent No.4 at the time of the alleged act. 
  • He was not managing the business of the company at the time the alleged act was committed and to support the same medical reports were presented by him. 
  • The process of passing execution order under CP Act was incorrect. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Delhi High Court observed that: 
  • Section 72 of CP Act empowers the consumer commission to issue an arrest warrant for non-compliance of its order. 
  • The purpose of issuing an arrest warrant by the SDRCX and NCDRC was not to seek the personal liability of the director but to seek accountability for the alleged act. 
  • The director cannot take the plea that he was not active when the alleged act occurred. The order was not about his personal liability but about holding the Respondent No. 4 accountable. 
• The court also stated that the power of enforcement and issuing warrant of arrest derives from Section 71 and Section 72 of CP Act respectively. 
• The power of issuing a warrant under CP Act derives from Section 71 of the Act to Section 72 of the Act. 
• The Delhi Hogh Court therefore dismissed the plea of the petitioner and confirmed the order of NCDRC. 

What is the Process of Enforcement of Order by Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission:  

• Section 71 - Enforcement of Orders  
  • Orders of the District Commission, State Commission, or National Commission shall be enforced in the same manner as a court decree, using the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure.  
• Section 72 - Penalty for Non-Compliance of Orders  
  • Failure to comply with an order of the District Commission, State Commission, or National Commission is punishable with:   
  • Imprisonment of 1 month to 3 years, and/or  
  • Fine of ₹25,000 to ₹1 lakh.  
  • The respective Commission shall have the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for trial of such offences.  
  • The offences shall be tried summarily by the respective Commission. 

Landmark Judgement 

• Rajnish Kumar Rohatgi & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Limited & Anr (2016): 
  • In this case it was held that the persons who were in charge and responsible to the company for conduct of its business on and after the date the order came to be passed by the Consumer Forum, till the said order is complied, shall be liable to be punished under the CP Act. 
• Ravi Kant v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (2024): 
  • In this case it was held that if a company fails or neglects to comply with an order passed by a Consumer Forum, liability extends not only to the company itself, but also to those individuals who are responsible for its operations and fail to take necessary steps to ensure compliance. 

Source: National Green Tribunal 

Why in News? 

A recent article in The Indian Express states a serious health crisis in Greater Noida, where over 300 residents, including 170 children, fell ill due to E.coli and bleaching powder in the water supply. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) took Suo moto cognizance  of the issue, linking it to potential violations of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Environment Protection Act, and has issued notices to relevant authorities to respond by 28th January, 2025. 

What was the Background of the Case? 

• On 13^th September 2024, The Indian Express published a news article titled "E. Coli traces of bleaching powder found in Greater Noida housing society water samples." 
• The Article reported of water contamination at Supertech Ecovillage 2, a housing society in Greater Noida West. 
• Over 300 residents, including 170 children, fell ill due to the contaminated water supply. 
• Affected residents experienced symptoms such as diarrhea, vomiting, stomach pain, and fever. 
• Water samples from the housing society were found to contain traces of E. coli bacteria and bleaching powder. 
• The presence of E. coli in drinking water poses significant health risks, particularly for vulnerable populations like children and the elderly. 
• Potential causes of contamination mentioned in the article included improper flushing of water tanks. 
• The Greater Noida Authority is responsible for supplying water up to the reservoir of group housing societies. 
• Internal water distribution within the housing society is managed by either the builder or the Apartment Owners Association (AOA). 
• The incident raises concerns regarding compliance with the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986. 
• The matter involves multiple stakeholders, including local authorities, pollution control boards, and housing society management. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Tribunal, exercising its suo motu jurisdiction as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors. (2021) has taken cognizance of the matter based on the news article. 
• The Bench determined that the news item raises substantial issues relating to compliance with provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986. 
• The Tribunal, in its discretion, has impleaded the Chairman of Greater Noida Authority, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Central Pollution Control Board, and the District Magistrate of Greater Noida as respondents in the matter. 
• The Bench has directed the issuance of notices to the respondents, requiring them to file their responses/replies in the form of affidavits before the Tribunal at least one week prior to the next date of the hearing. 
• The Tribunal has further stipulated that if any respondent directly files a reply without routing it through their advocate, the said respondent shall remain virtually present to assist the Tribunal during proceedings. 

What is Suo Moto Cognizance? 

• Suo moto jurisdiction is part of judicial activism in India, where courts initiate proceedings on their own motion to address issues of public importance, especially human rights violations and environmental protection. 
• The philosophical justification is to deliver justice to disadvantaged sections who may not be able to approach courts themselves. Critics argue it violates separation of powers. 
• There is no specific law governing suo moto jurisdiction, but it has been legalized through Supreme Court Rules in 2014.  
  • Courts have exercised it in various matters of public interest. 
• In environmental cases, suo moto cognizance has been particularly important as issues often affect large populations.  
  • The Supreme Court has taken up several environmental matters suo moto. 
• The National Green Tribunal (NGT) was established in 2010 as a specialized environmental court.  
  • Unlike regular tribunals, it aims to safeguard fundamental rights related to environment under Article 21. 
• Initially, the NGT Act did not explicitly provide suo moto powers to NGT.  
  • In 2012, NGT itself observed it did not have such powers. 
• However, given NGT's mandate to address collective environmental issues and protect fundamental rights, there are arguments for a broader interpretation of its powers to include suo moto jurisdiction. 
• The Supreme Court has directed that environmental matters under NGT's purview should be litigated before NGT rather than other courts. 

What are Landmark Case Laws on Suo Motu Cognizance? 

• Society for Protection of Silent Valley v Union of India and Ors: Marked the initial phase of PILs in environmental matters. 
• Sarin Memorial Legal Aid Foundation v State of Punjab (2017): Supreme Court took up writ petitions to examine encroachment in the catchment area of Sukhna Lake. 
• Doon Valley case (Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v State of Uttar Pradesh): A letter sent to the Supreme Court was treated as a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution, leading to a ban on mining operations. 

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 

About : 

• The Act provides a comprehensive framework for environmental protection in India, granting extensive powers to the Central Government to take measures for preventing, controlling, and abating environmental pollution. 
• It defines crucial environmental terms broadly and establishes mechanisms for setting environmental standards, restricting hazardous activities, and conducting inspections to ensure compliance with environmental regulations. 
• The Act imposes strict responsibilities on industries and individuals handling pollutants or hazardous substances, requiring them to adhere to prescribed standards and procedures to minimize environmental harm. 
• Violations of the Act's provisions are subject to severe penalties, including imprisonment up to 5-7 years and substantial fines, reflecting the legislation's intent to strongly deter environmental offenses. 

Legal Provision : 

• Definitions (Section 2): The Act provides comprehensive definitions for key terms: 
  • "Environment" is broadly defined to include water, air, land, and the interrelationships among them, as well as with living organisms and property. 
  • "Environmental pollutant" refers to any substance present in concentrations that may be harmful to the environment. 
  • "Environmental pollution" is defined as the presence of any environmental pollutant in the environment. 
  • "Hazardous substance" includes any substance that may cause harm to living beings, property, or the environment due to its chemical or physico-chemical properties or handling. 
• Powers of the Central Government (Section 3): The Act grants extensive powers to the Central Government to: 
  • Take necessary measures to protect and improve environmental quality. 
  • Plan and execute nationwide programs for pollution prevention, control, and abatement. 
  • Lay down standards for environmental quality and emission/discharge of pollutants. 
  • Restricting areas for certain industrial operations or processes. 
  • Establish procedures for handling hazardous substances and preventing accidents. 
  • Inspect premises and issue directions to authorities for environmental protection. 
  • Establish environmental laboratories and collect/disseminate environmental information. 
• Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Environmental Pollution (Sections 7-9): These sections state the responsibilities: 
  • No person carrying on any industry, operation or process shall discharge pollutants exceeding prescribed standards. 
  • Handlers of hazardous substances must comply with prescribed procedural safeguards. 
  • Persons responsible for pollutant discharge due to accidents must prevent/mitigate pollution and inform prescribed authorities. 
• Powers of Entry and Inspection (Section 10): Empowered government officials have the right to: 
  • Enter and inspect any place for performing functions under the Act. 
  • Examine equipment, records, or other objects. 
  • Conduct searches and seize items related to offenses under the Act. 
• Penalties (Section 15): The Act prescribes stringent penalties for violations: 
  • Imprisonment up to 5 years or fine up to 1 lakh rupees, or both, for each contravention. 
  • Additional fine of up to 5,000 rupees per day for continuing violations. 
  • Enhanced punishment of up to 7 years imprisonment for violations continuing beyond one year after conviction 

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. 

• Constitution of Central Board (Section 3) 
  • The Central Government shall constitute a Central Pollution Control Board within 6 months of the Act's commencement in specified states/territories. 
• Composition of Central Board:  
  • Full-time Chairman nominated by Central Government  
  • Up to 5 officials representing Central Government  
  • Up to 5 persons from State Boards  
  • Up to 3 non-officials representing interests like agriculture, fishery, industry etc.  
  • 2 persons representing companies/corporations controlled by Central Government  
  • Full-time Member Secretary appointed by Central Government 
  • The Central Board will be a body corporate with perpetual succession and common seal. 
• Constitution of State Boards (Section 4) 
  • State Governments shall constitute State Pollution Control Boards. 
  • Composition of State Boards:  
    • Chairman nominated by State Government  
    • Up to 5 officials representing State Government  
    • Up to 5 persons from local authorities  
    • Up to 3 non-officials representing interests like agriculture, fishery, industry etc.  
    • 2 persons representing companies/corporations controlled by State Government  
    • Full-time Member Secretary appointed by State Government 
    • State Boards will be bodies corporate with perpetual succession and common seal. 
    • Central Board will perform functions of State Board for Union Territories. 
• Powers and Functions of Boards (Chapter IV) 
  • Functions of Central Board: 
    • Promote cleanliness of streams and wells 
    • Advise Central Government on water pollution prevention and control 
    • Coordinate activities of State Boards 
    • Provide technical assistance to State Boards 
    • Carry out research on water pollution 
    • Set standards for streams and wells 
  • Functions of State Boards: 
    • Plan and secure execution of programs for pollution prevention/control 
    • Advise State Government 
    • Collect and disseminate information 
    • Encourage/conduct research 
    • Inspect sewage/trade effluents and treatment plants 
    • Lay down effluent standards 
    • Evolve treatment methods 
• Prevention and Control of Water Pollution (Chapter V) 
  • Restrictions on new outlets and discharges (Section 25) 
  • Provisions for existing discharge of sewage/effluents (Section 26) 
  • Power to refuse/withdraw consent by State Board (Section 27) 
  • Appeals process (Section 28) 
  • Emergency measures by State Board (Section 32) 
  • Power to make court application to restrain pollution (Section 33) 
• Penalties and Procedure (Chapter VII) 
  • Penalties for non-compliance with directions/orders (Section 41) 
  • Penalties for acts like damaging Board property, obstructing officers, etc. (Section 42) 
  • Penalties for contravention of Sections 24, 25, 26 (Sections 43, 44) 
  • Enhanced penalties for repeat offenses (Section 45) 
  • Provisions for offenses by companies and government departments (Sections 47, 48) 
  • Rules for cognizance of offenses (Section 49)