List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court recently clarified the conditions under which the official superiors can be held liable for the abetment of a junior official's suicide. The Court distinguished between two categories of relationships: sentimental ties (e.g., familial or romantic) and official capacities.  

• Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held this in the case of Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh.  
• It emphasized that conflicts in sentimental relationships can lead to psychological distress, potentially resulting in suicide, thus establishing grounds for liability in certain circumstances. 

What was the Background of Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh Case? 

• Rajeev Jain was an employee of Hindustan Lever Limited who had worked with the company for 23 years. 
• On 3^rd November 2006, Rajeev Jain committed suicide in his hotel room in Lucknow. 
• The next day, his brother Rajnish Jain filed a First Information Report (FIR) regarding the suicide. 
• According to the FIR, the company had been offering a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), which was allegedly being implemented as a Compulsory Retirement Scheme (CRS). 
• Several company officers were named in the FIR, including Nipun Aneja, Z.I. Alvi, and Manish Sharma, who were accused of pressuring and harassing employees to accept the VRS. 
• On the day of his death, Rajeev Jain had attended a meeting at Hotel Deep Palace in Lucknow with other employees and company officers. 
• During this meeting, Rajeev Jain and other employees who had not opted for VRS were allegedly given letters to work in merchandising, which was considered a lower position than their current roles as salesmen. 
• Two colleagues of the deceased, Sudhir Kumar Ojha and Jayant Kumar Ghatak, provided statements to the police describing the events of the meeting and the alleged harassment. 
• Based on these statements and other evidence, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused officers under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) for abetment of suicide. 
• The accused officers filed a petition to quash the criminal proceedings, which was rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. 
• Following this rejection, the accused officers appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's decision not to quash the criminal proceedings against them. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court established that for Section 306 of IPC (abetment of suicide), there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. 
• The Court categorized relationships in abetment cases into two types:  
  • Where the deceased had sentimental or physical ties with the accused  
  • Where the deceased had official relations with the accused 
• The Court noted that in official relationships, expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies, and regulations, unlike sentimental relationships which carry more personal expectations. 
• The Court held that the test in such cases should be to ascertain whether there is prima facie evidence that the accused intended the consequences of their act, i.e., suicide. 
• The Court noted several factors that should be examined in abetment cases:  
  • Whether the accused created a situation of unbearable harassment  
  • Whether they exploited emotional vulnerability 
  • Whether they threatened dire consequences  
  • Whether they made false allegations damaging reputation 
• The Court observed that the High Court's approach was incorrect as it failed to properly examine these factors. 
• The Court states that mere harassment or humiliation in an official capacity, without the specific intention to drive someone to suicide, does not constitute abetment. 
• The Court noted that while courts often wait for a full trial to determine intention, in abetment of suicide cases, the nature of allegations often makes things clear from the outset. 
• The Court observed that unnecessary prosecutions often result from courts' inability to correctly apply the principles of law governing abetment of suicide. 
• The Court found that putting the appellants on trial would be an abuse of the process of law, as no case worth the name was made out against them. 
• The Court distinguished between normal workplace conflicts and actions that could be considered abetment, emphasizing that official relationships typically have different standards than personal ones. 

What is Section 108 of BNS,2023? 

About: 

• Section 108 of BNS prescribes punishment for abetment of suicide, which can extend to ten years imprisonment and includes a fine. 
• Previously it was given under Section 306 of IPC. 

Essential Ingredients: 

• The essential ingredients of an offense under Section 108 BNS are:  
  • The fact of suicide 
  • Abetment by the accused 
• To establish abetment under this section, the prosecution must prove:  
  • That the deceased committed suicide. 
  • That the accused had abetted the commission of suicide. 

Requirement for Conviction: 

• For conviction under Section 108, there must be evidence of:  
  • A direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide. 
  • The accused's intention to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. 
• Mere harassment or insulting behavior does not constitute abetment unless:  
  • There is evidence suggesting the accused intended to instigate suicide. 
  • The act was proximate to the time of the suicide. 
• The prosecution must establish a clear mens rea (guilty mind) on the part of the accused to commit the offense. 
• The act of the accused must be:  
  • An active or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide. 
  • Intended to push the deceased into a position where they saw no option but suicide. 
• The section requires proof of:  
  • The accused's actions  
  • A clear nexus between these actions and the victim's suicide. 
• The court must consider:  
  • The state of mind of the accused. 
  • The nature of their actions. 
  • The proximity of their actions to the suicide. 
• A conviction cannot be sustained without:  
  • A positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid. 
  • Evidence of intentional conduct leading to the suicide. 
• The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish all elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. 

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Dr Brij Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another has held that the Police cannot investigate under the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT) and only the Appropriate authority have the jurisdiction to take the cognizance of such cases. 

What was the Background of the Dr Brij Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Case? 

• In the present case, a report was filed in the police station that someone has secretly informed that in the Soba Ram Hospital, the sex identification of the foetus of the pregnant women has been done. 
• The object of such practice was to avoid the birth of a girl child. 
• It was suggested that to grab the doctors and associated person red handed a decoy pregnant woman to be sent. 
• Based on the secret information received the District Appropriate Authority under Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT) conducted the required proceedings. 
• A planning was done to catch the wrongdoers red handed. 
• The plan was successful, and the team reached the real doctor who was involved in all such activities who is the petitioner in the present case. 
• The instant First Information Report (FIR) was written by S.I. Subhash Singh on the dictation of Tehsildar and all the members of the police team have signed as witness to the said incident and a copy of the said report was also given to them. 
• A charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the case was registered. 
• The petitioner filed an application for quashing of the entire proceedings of the criminal case as well as the summoning order before the Allahabad High Court. 
• The petitioner argued that the case registered under Section 28 of PCPNDT can only be filed before an appropriate authority and not in FIRs. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Allahabad High Court observed that that: 
  • The general procedure followed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not apply to the cases registered under PCPNDT. 
  • As per rule 18 of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996, when read with section 28 and Section 30 of the act, police authorities cannot be involved in the investigation procedure and such cases shall be tried as complaint cases. 
  • Magistrates can take the cognizance of the cognizance of such cases and even when the Police report is submitted when the complaint is made by an authorized person. 
• Therefore. The Allahabad High Court allowed the present application and quashed the criminal proceedings against the doctor.

What is Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT)? 

About: 

• The PCPNDT was enacted to prevent female foeticide and regulates the declining sex ratio in India. 
• Under this act the prenatal sex determination was banned.  

Objective: 

• To ban the use of sex selection techniques either before or after conception. 
• It is used to prevent misuse of prenatal diagnostic techniques for sex- selective abortion. 

Offences under the Act: 

• Conducting or aiding in prenatal diagnostic techniques in the facilities which were unregistered. 
• Any sale. Distribution, supply, renting etc of any ultrasound machine which can detect sex of the foetus. 

Power of Investigation & Arrest under the Act: 

• Under this act an Appropriate Authority have the power to investigate and arrest. 
• The appropriate authority does not have the power to arrest under this act. 
• The police have the authority to make an arrest under this act. 

Provisions Referred under the Present Case: 

• Meaning of Foetus: 
  • As per Section 2 (bc) of PCPNDT “foetus” means a human organism during the period of its development beginning on the fifty-seventh day following fertilization or creation (excluding any time in which its development has been suspended) and ending at the birth.
• Meaning of Pre-natal Diagnostic procedures: 
  • As per Section 2 (i) of PCPNDT “pre-natal diagnostic procedures” means all gynaecological or obstetrical or medical procedures such as ultrasonography, foetoscopy, taking or removing samples of amniotic fluid, chorionic villi, blood or any other tissue or fluid of a man, or of a woman for being sent to a Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic for conducting any type of analysis or pre-natal diagnostic tests for selection of sex before or after conception.
• Cognizance of offences (Section 28):
  • Subsection (1) states that the court shall take the cognizance if the complaint made by:
    • Clause (a) states that the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government or the Appropriate Authority. 
    • Clause (b) states that a person who has given notice of not less than fifteen days in the manner prescribed, to the Appropriate Authority, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the court. 
  • Subsection (2) states that under this act the Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try the cases. 
  • Subsection (3) states that on demand by the parties under clause (b) of Subsection (1) then court may direct the appropriate authorities to make them available. 

Pre Natal-Techniques and Ethical Issues: 

• Violation of Rights and Human Dignity: Sex-selective abortion is a form of gender discrimination and violence against women that violates their right to life, dignity, and equality. 
• Undermines Dignity: It also undermines the value and dignity of human life and the diversity of human society. 
• Adds to Social Problems: It has adverse consequences for the society such as skewed sex ratio, increased trafficking and violence against women, reduced marriage prospects for men, etc. 
• Responsibility towards Unborn Child: It also raises moral questions about the use of prenatal diagnosis for non-medical purposes and the responsibility of parents and health care providers towards the unborn child. 
• Access to Healthcare: Prenatal diagnosis and sex-selective abortion can exacerbate existing health disparities and inequalities, particularly for marginalized communities who may have limited access to healthcare and information.

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma held that in appropriate cases, the Court may decline to exercise its discretion by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.         

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of Michael Builders and Developers v. The Indian Nursing Council and Ors. 

What was the Background of Michael Builders and Developers v. The Indian Nursing Council and Ors. Case? 

• The petitioner (Michael Builders and Developers) entered into an agreement for construction of a proposed medical college with St. Alphonso Trust. 
• Upon completing the construction, the claim of amount due for the work was raised by the petitioner. 
• The trust failed to make payment and hence the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act) before the District Court. 
• The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 11 of A & C Act before Madras High Court seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 
• An agreement of settlement was passed between the parties following this wherein the Trust agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,95,00,000/- along with 18% GST and pending service tax, as full and final settlement.    
• However, it was stated that the total outstanding liability is Rs. 26,00,00,000/-. 
• The settlement agreement was then submitted to the arbitrator who passed the consent order directing the Trust to pay the aforementioned amount. 
• The trust failed to comply with the payment terms and therefore, the petitioner filed an execution petition before the Principal District Judge seeking execution by attaching and selling the subject properties. 
• The District Judge passed an order for the attachment of the subject property. 
• The allegation of the petitioner is that in violation of the order of the Court the Trust applied for an Essentiality Certificate to commence a nursing and medical college on attached properties. 
• The Petitioner had filed earlier writ petitions before the Madras High Court seeking directions to the Secretary of the Government not to grant permission to the Trust. 
• The Petitioner has approached the Court seeking a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondents from granting any permission, recognition, or approval for the establishment of a nursing college to the Trust on the attached subject property, and an independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the grant of the Essentiality Certificate dated 14.06.2024. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that the petitioner had earlier approached Madras High Court for relief and the orders passed by them directly pertain to the property in question and the execution of the arbitral award. 
• Thus, there is no justification for invoking the jurisdiction of this High Court when the Courts in Tamil Nadu have already been seized of the matter and have issued relevant orders. 
• The Court held that in case a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor to compel that particular High Court to exercise its jurisdiction. 
• Thus, the Court held that the Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. 
• In this case it was argued that since the National Medical Commission has its head office in Delhi, this Court should exercise jurisdiction. The Court made an important observation that merely because the head office of National Medical Commission or Indian Nursing Council in Delhi does not automatically confer jurisdiction upon this Court. 
• It was observed that these bodies have offices and their legal teams, which function in every State across the country, including Tamil Nadu. 
• Thus, the argument that National Medical Commission or Indian Nursing Council is based in Delhi is insufficient to justify the filing of a writ petition before this Court, especially when the cause of action has arisen, and the parties involved herein are located, in Tamil Nadu and have already approached the Courts situated in the State of Tamil Nadu and have contested and obtained orders from the said Courts. 
• The Court was thus of the opinion that the petitioner herein has engaged in forum shopping by seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court after having withdrawn petitions from the appropriate forum in Tamil Nadu.  
• Such conduct, where the petitioner attempts to choose a forum favorable to them after having already approached the appropriate forum, cannot be condoned. 
• In view of the above, the present petitions along with pending application stood dismissed solely on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction, along with a total cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs.25,000/- in each petition), to be deposited with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund within two weeks.

What is Forum Shopping? 

About:

• Forum shopping refers to the practice of deliberately choosing a specific court for a legal case in the hope of getting a favorable outcome. 
• Litigants and lawyers often consider this strategy as part of their litigation plan. 
• Forum shopping has been criticized by judges because it can lead to injustice for the opposing party and create an imbalance in the workload of different courts. 
• It can undermine the authority and legitimacy of courts and judges by creating perceptions of bias or favoritism. 
• It can increase the costs and complexity of litigation by creating conflicts of laws and multiple proceedings.

Landmark Cases:

• Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd v. Union of India (2004): 
  • Even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. 
  • In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.
• State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd. (2023): 
  • The constitutional mandate of clause (2) is that the “cause of action”, referred to therein, must at least arise in part within the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction. 
  • However, in the context of a writ petition, what would constitute such “cause of action” is the material facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief as claimed. 
  • Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject-matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted. 
  • Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court.
• Chetak Construction Ltd v.  Om Prakash (2024): 
  • The Supreme Court emphasized that litigants should not have the freedom to choose the court for their convenience. The court stated that any attempt at forum shopping should be strongly discouraged.
• Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal (2022):
  • The Supreme Court termed forum shopping as a “disreputable practice by the courts” that “has no sanction and paramountcy in law”.