List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Kanika Dhingra v. State of U.P. and connected matters has held that the court may deny bail if the offence is an economic offence affecting public at large and a woman holding an influential position cannot be given benefit of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) 

• Section 437 of CrPC is now covered under Section 480 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) 

What was the Background of Kanika Dhingra vs. State of U.P. and connected matters Case?  

• Three First Information Reports (FIRs) were filed related to alleged fraudulent Goods and Service Tax (GST) registrations and input tax credit claims. 
• The accused are alleged to have created a syndicate that collected SIM cards and personal data to create fake firms by uploading information to the GST portal. 
• Approximately 2,600 fake firms were allegedly registered, involving input tax credit claims of over 4,000 crore rupees. 
• The main accused include Sanjay Dhingra, his wife Kanika Dhingra, and their son Mayank Dhingra. 
• Sanjay Dhingra is alleged to be the chief controller of M/s Good Health Pvt. Ltd., which was allegedly involved in the scam. 
• It was alleged that the two firms, AKS Traders and YOYO Traders, were found to be non-existent and allegedly connected to M/s Good Health Industries Private Limited. 
• Mobile phones used in registering these fake firms were traced back to one of the accused, Deepak Murjani. 
• The applicants, Kanika Dhingra and Mayank Dhingra, are accused of being involved in the conspiracy and benefiting from the fraudulent transactions. 
• Investigations revealed multiple transactions in the accounts of Kanika Dhingra and Mayank Dhingra, totaling approximately 300 crore rupees.  
• The accused are charged under sections 420 (cheating), 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC. 
• The prosecution argues that the applicants were part of a larger conspiracy to defraud the government through fake GST registrations and fraudulent input tax credit claims.  
• The defense contends that the applicants have been falsely implicated without credible evidence and that mere money transactions do not prove their involvement in the alleged crimes. 
• Three Bail application based on the above-mentioned allegations were filed by the applicants before the Allahabad High Court.  

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Allahabad High Court observed that: 
  • Bail can be denied in cases of economic offences that significantly impact society's economic fabric, especially if the accused holds a position of influence or power. 
  • The benefit of Section 437 of CrPC, which typically allows for bail to be granted to women in non-bailable offences, cannot be extended to women who are powerful or connected to powerful individuals, particularly when the offence affects the public at large. 
  • The case involved a money trail of crores of rupees, which has a large-scale impact on society. This began with the registration of fake firms using Aadhaar and PAN cards of citizens who had not applied for such registrations. 
  • If relatives (in this case, mother and son) knowingly benefit from money or transactions, even without directly participating in the crime, they can be implicated in legal proceedings as an offence against them is made out.  
• The Court also found evidence in the case diary suggesting that the mother and son personally gained from the illegal funds. Thus, it concluded that it couldn't be said they were not guilty simply because they weren't directly involved in registering fake firms. 
• The Court highlighted that money laundering has become a frequent occurrence. If there's evidence that the recipient attempted to conceal the source of funds or participated in transferring money in ways suggesting intentional wrongdoing, it creates circumstantial evidence of involvement in criminal activity.  
• The Court found that the involvement, knowledge, and actions of the applicants following the deposits indicated they were well-connected with Sanjay Dhingra regarding transactions with GST firms registered using fraudulent means. 
• The Court noted that the intention of all the accused in having transactions with fake GST firms was to claim input tax credit fraudulently. 
• The Court observed that the offences under the relevant sections were prima facie made out against the accused and had been adequately investigated by the Investigating Officer after the lodging of FIRs.  
• In light of these observations, the Court denied bail to the applicants, considering the seriousness of the economic offences alleged and the evidence suggesting their involvement in the conspiracy. 

What are the Legal Provisions in relation to Bail? 

Concept of Bail: 

• Bail, a legal provision within CrPC and now BNSS facilitates release from prison pending trial or appeal upon depositing security.  
• Bailable offences guarantee the right to bail, as per Section 436 of the CrPC (this section is now covered under Section 478 of BNSS), while non-bailable offences grant discretion to courts or designated police officers, as outlined in Section 437.  
• Justice V R Krishna Iyer in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) held that the basic rule is bail, not jail. It referred to a concept which is ‘Bail is a Right and Jail is an exception”.

Section 480(1) of BNSS:

• This section states the provisions related as to when bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. 
• Subsection (1) states that if any person is accused of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant may be released on bail except: 
  • Clause (1) states that such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for Maximum period for which undertrial prisoner can be detained. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. Believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 
  • Clause (2) states that such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but less than seven years. 
  • It is provided that the person detained under the above clauses can be released on bail if such person is a child, women or is sick or infirm. 
  • It is further if person in Clause(ii) may be released on bail if the court finds it just and proper to do so. 
  • Provided also that the mere fact that an accused person may be required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that he shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Court. 
  • Provided also that no person shall, if the offence alleged to have been committed by him is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or more, be released on bail by the Court under this sub-section without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor.

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News?

The Delhi High Court, led by Justice Subramonium Prasad states the critical principle of judicial non-interference in both domestic and international arbitration. The petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act) seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator. 

What was the Background of Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Rajender and Others. Case? 

• On 24^th November 2005, Rajesh Kumar Gupta (the petitioner) and Rajender & others (the respondents) executed an Agreement to Sell and Purchase. 
• This agreement pertained to an industrial plot measuring 300 Square Yards, situated within the extended Lal Dora Abadi of village Khera Kalan, Delhi. 
• The agreement was accompanied by additional documents, including a General Power of Attorney, Separate Deed of Wills, Affidavit, Receipt, and Possession Letter, all dated 24^th November 2005. 
• The subject plot was originally allotted to the respondents on 6th May 2005, and was subsequently sold to the petitioner within six months of the allotment. 
• On 10^th December 2007, the original Khasra No. 108/357(0-06) was withdrawn from the respondents, and they were allotted Khasra No. 108/176 (0-06) in its place. 
• On 10^th August 2020, the petitioner discovered that the subject plot was in the possession of an unidentified third party, who claimed it had been allotted to them after withdrawal from the respondents. 
• The petitioner sent a demand cum legal notice to the respondents on 27th August 2020, seeking compensation for the loss suffered. 
• The respondents replied on 11th September 2020, denying the execution of the Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 24th November 2005. 
• Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 
• The petitioner's claim is primarily for a refund of the consideration amount paid for the plot. 
• The respondents contest the petition on grounds of limitation and non-arbitrability, arguing that the claim is time-barred and involves third-party rights. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court affirmed that the principle of judicial non-interference in arbitral proceedings is fundamental to both domestic and international commercial arbitration. 
• The court observed that its role at this stage is limited to determining the existence of an arbitration agreement, and not to delve into substantive issues. 
  • The court noted that once an arbitration agreement exists, the option of approaching the civil court becomes unavailable to the parties. 
• The court held that if it were to examine issues beyond the existence of the arbitration agreement, it would amount to usurpation of the arbitral tribunal's power. 
• The court observed that matters such as limitation and third-party rights should be left to be decided by the arbitrator. 
• The court stated that the arbitrator has the power to impose costs on the claimant if the claim is found to be frivolous or barred by limitation. 
• The court emphasized that judicial interference at this stage should be minimal, in line with the principles of arbitral autonomy. 
• The court observed that proceedings before the arbitrator would provide ample opportunity to both parties to present their case on all issues, including limitation and arbitrability. 

What is Principle of Judicial Non-Interference? 

• The principle of judicial non-interference is a central tenet of modern arbitration law, aimed at preserving the autonomy of the arbitral process and minimizing court intervention. 
• In International Arbitration: 
  • Major conventions like the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law enshrine this principle by limiting court intervention to specific instances. 
  • Article 5 of the UNCITRAL Model Law states: "In matters governed by this Law, no court shall intervene except where so provided in this Law." 
  • The principle aims to preserve party autonomy and arbitrator discretion in procedural matters. 
• In Indian Domestic Arbitration: 
  • The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 incorporates this principle, modeled on the UNCITRAL Model Law. 
  • Section 5 of the Act states: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part." 
  • The Act aims to minimize court intervention, limiting it to specific areas like appointing arbitrators, granting interim measures, and setting aside awards on limited grounds. 
• Key legal principles: 
  • Courts should only play an administrative role rather than an adjudicatory one in arbitration. 
  • Judicial intervention should be limited to instances specifically provided for in the law. 
  • Courts should respect the competence of arbitral tribunals to rule on their own jurisdiction. 
  • The grounds for setting aside or refusing enforcement of arbitral awards should be narrowly construed. 

What is Section 11(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? 

• It deals with appointing a sole arbitrator when parties fail to agree. 
• The primary method for appointing an arbitrator is through agreement between the parties. 
• If the parties have not pre-agreed on a procedure for appointing the arbitrator, the process outlined in this section applies. 
• In cases where a sole arbitrator is to be appointed, the parties have 30 days from the date one party receives a request from the other to agree on the arbitrator. 
• If the parties fail to reach an agreement within this 30-day period, either party can make an application for the appointment of an arbitrator. 
• The application for appointment must be made in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 11. 
• The court (or designated authority) has the power to make the appointment upon such an application. 
• This provision aims to prevent a deadlock in the arbitration process due to the parties' inability to agree on an arbitrator. 
• The 30-day period serves as a reasonable timeframe for parties to attempt to reach an agreement before seeking court intervention. 
• This section reflects the principle of party autonomy in arbitration, giving parties the primary right to choose their arbitrator, while also providing a fallback mechanism to keep the process moving. 
• The court's role in appointing an arbitrator under this section is administrative rather than judicial in nature, in line with the principle of minimal judicial intervention in arbitration. 

Source: Gujarat High Court 

Why in News?

A bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that the Government should undo the wrong and provide reservation to persons with disabilities.         

• The Gujarat High Court held this in the case of National Federation of the Blind v. The State of Gujarat & Anr. 

What was the Background of National Federation of the Blind v. The State of Gujarat & Anr. Case? 

• The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed with the sole objective of implementation of the following: 
  • Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act) specially Section 34 of the RPWD Act.
  • Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act) 
  • The directions passed by the Apex Court in the Union of India and Another v. National Federation of the Blind and Others (2013) delivered on 8th October 2013. 
• The petitioner in this case alleged that the Apex Court had interpreted Section 33 of the PWD Act as that every Appropriate Government has to appoint minimum 3% vacancies in an establishment out of which 1% are reserved for people suffering from blindness and low vision, persons suffering from hearing impediment and persons suffering from locomotor disability or cerebral palsy. 
• Further, the Apex Court had held that the computation of reservation is against the total approved vacancies in the cadre strength and not against the notified posts. 
• With the enactment of the RPWD Act the reservation has been increased from 3% to 4% and two more benchmark disabilities have been included. 
• Further, the carry forward principle was also added under Section 34 of the Act. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• In the State of Gujarat, the 1995 Act was implemented only in the year 2000 and there was no reservation in compliance of Section 33 of the 1995 Act between the years 1996 to 2000. Also, the Act of 2016 was implemented in 2021. 
• The Court observed that there was a misunderstanding in the mind of the Chief Secretary of the Government of Gujarat in the matter of implementation of 1995 Act and 2016 Act. 
• The Court held that the provisions of the Act were to be applied forthwith as non-implementation of the Act would result in deprivation of benefit of reservation to the persons with disabilities in the State of Gujarat.  
• The Learned Advocate General appearing for the State gave assurance to the Court that the State Government was committed to implementing both the above-mentioned Acts.  
• The Learned Advocate General has assured the Court that the State would coordinate with the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India and would find a solution to rectify the situation by computing the backlog vacancies and preparing a plan for holding Special recruitment drive. 
• The matter is further posted on 22nd November 2024.

What are the Different Kinds of Reservations ?

• In the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that there are two types of reservations:  
  • Horizontal Reservations  
  • Vertical Reservations   
• Vertical Reservations: 
  • They are the highest form of special provisions intended exclusively for members of backward classes SC, ST and OBC.  
  • The positions secured by members of these classes on the basis of their merit and are not counted against vertically reserved positions.  
  • They cannot exceed 50%.  
• Horizontal Reservations:  
  • They are lesser form of special provisions and are intended for other disadvantaged citizens (like disabled, women etc).  
  • Adjustments through them cannot interfere with the seats vertically reserved for backward classes.

What are the Provisions Concerning Reservation with Respect to Persons with Disabilities? 

• Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 
  • Section 32: 
    • This provision provides for Reservation in Higher Educational Institutions. 
    • It provides that all the Government Institutions (including those receiving aid from the Government) of higher education shall reserve not less than 5% seats for person with benchmark disabilities. 
  • Section 33: 
    • This provision provides that the Appropriate Government shall identify posts in the respective category that should be provided reservation. 
  • Section 34 
    • Clause (1) provides that every Appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment not less than 4% of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities. 
    • 1% of the above posts shall be reserved for persons falling under following categories: 
      • Blindness and low vision 
      • Deaf and hard of hearing 
      • Locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy 
    • Further, 1% shall be reserved for the following: 
      • Autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness. 
      • Multiple disabilities from amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) (mentioned above) including deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities. 
    • Clause 2 of Section 34 provides for the rule of carry forward in case there are unfulfilled posts. 
    • Clause 3 of Section 34 provides that there can be relaxation of upper age limit for employment of persons with benchmark disability. 
• Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act) 
  • Section 32: 
    • Section 32 provides that the Appropriate Government shall 
      • Identify posts, in the establishments, which can be reserved for the persons with disability 
      • At periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review the list of posts identified and up-date the list taking into consideration the developments in technology. 
  • Section 33 
    • Section 33 provides for percentage of reservation to granted to the persons suffering from the disabilities mentioned therein. 
    • Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every establishment such a percentage of vacancies not less than three per cent. for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per cent. each shall be reserved for persons suffering from- 
      • Blindness or low vision; 
      • Bearing impairment; 
      • Loco motor disability or cerebral palsy, in the posts identified for each disability: 
    • Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section. 
• Section 39: 
  • All Government educational institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the Government, shall reserve not less than three per cent seat for persons with disabilities. 
• Section 40: 
  • The appropriate Governments and local authorities shall reserve not less than three per cent. in all poverty alleviation schemes for the benefit of persons with disabilities.