List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. V. Mini Babu George & Ors. has held that while determining accidental claims the principle of preponderance of probability must be applied and not the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 

What was the Background of the Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. V. Mini Babu George & Ors Case?  

• The case involves a fatal motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10th June 2023. 
• The deceased, Ikhbal, was riding a motorcycle from Thodupuzha to Muttom when the accident took place.  
• The appellants (Ikhbal's widow, minor child, and parents) claim that a car driven by respondent no. 2 came from the opposite direction and hit Ikhbal's motorcycle. 
• As a result of the collision, Ikhbal fell and sustained fatal injuries. He was taken to the hospital but succumbed to his injuries. 
• At the time of his death, Ikhbal was employed as a U.D. Clerk in the Registration Department with a monthly income of Rs. 21,456/-. 
• The appellants filed a claim petition against the owner (respondent no. 1), driver (respondent no. 2), and insurer (respondent no. 3) of the car allegedly involved in the accident. 
• Respondent nos. 2 and 3 denied the involvement of their car in the accident, claiming that Ikhbal's motorcycle hit the parked bus while attempting to overtake it. 
• The respondents contend that respondent no. 2 arrived at the scene after the accident and helped transport Ikhbal to the hospital. 
• The case primarily revolves around determining whether the car was indeed involved in the accident and if the driver was negligent. 
• Both parties presented witnesses and documentary evidence to support their respective claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). 
• It is argued that the MACT and the High Court as well have recorded the findings adverse to the appellants basing on conjectures and surmises and by complete misreading the evidence. 
• Aggrieved the appellant filed the present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (COI) before the Supreme Court.

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal:

• It deals with all the claims related to loss of life/property and injury cases resulting from Motor Accidents. 
• The claims are to be filed directly before the tribunal. 
• The courts under MACT are presided by judicial officers from the district Judicial Service. 
• The claims to be filed in a prescribed format. 
• The contents and documents required for filing are also to be complied with while filing before MACT.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • That there was ample evidence demonstrating the involvement of the car in the accident, contrary to the lower courts' findings. 
  • That the lower courts' findings were based on conjectures and misreading of evidence. 
  • That the damage to the car, as recorded in the Mahazar (inspection report), clearly indicated its involvement in the accident. 
• The Supreme Court criticized the lower courts for disbelieving the eyewitness solely because the police had not recorded his statement during the investigation. 
• It emphasized that in motor accident cases, the principle of preponderance of probability should be applied, not the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 
• The Supreme Court found the car driver's admission that the bus was 100 feet away when the motorcycle hit the car to be significant. 
  • The Court noted the importance of considering all evidence, including the testimony of the bus driver and the teashop owner. 
  • It highlighted that the Mahazar clearly recorded damages to the front side of the car, making it impossible to conclude that the car was not involved in the accident. 
• The Supreme Court determined that the lower courts had failed to consider the evidence in its true perspective, resulting in a perverse finding regarding the non-involvement of the car. 
• Based on the above observations the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence, when properly assessed, could only lead to the conclusion that the car was involved in the accident that caused Ikhbal's death. 

What is the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 

About: 

• Replacing the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, this Act came into force on 1st July 1989. 
• The Act provides in detail the legislative provisions regarding licensing of drivers/conductors, registration of motor vehicles, control of motor vehicles through permits, special provisions relating to state transport undertakings, traffic regulation, insurance, liability, offences and penalties, etc. 

Objectives: 

• Road safety. 
• Efficient transportation. 
• Protection of the rights of road users. 
• The Act provides a comprehensive framework for traffic regulations, vehicle standards, licensing, and penalties for violations.

What is Preponderance of Probability? 

About: 

• It is basically determining which fact or evidence is more likely to happen. 
• This concept does not involve elimination of all doubts rather it weighs the two presented facts based on which has greater likelihood. 
•  It is contrasting to the principle of proving beyond reasonable doubt. 
• In civil cases the party having burden of proof has to show that their side of story is more plausible than the other side. 

Key Elements of Preponderance of Probability: 

• The fact of one side must be proved that it is more likely to occur than the other side. 
• The evidence having greater credibility or weigh shall be determined by the court to conclude the case. 
• Such principle can be applicable in the disputes related to contracts, torts, where the burden of proof lies on the claimant. 
• The balance should be made by the court between the seriousness of case to the evidence presented. Standard of evidence varies with the gravity of the Issue. 

Difference Between Principle of Preponderance of Probability & Proving Beyond Reasonable Doubt:

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which recognizes the Assam Accord, by a 4:1 majority. The majority opinion, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, emphasized the need to balance humanitarian concerns with local population protections, while dissenting Justice Pardiwala argued that the provision had become unconstitutional over time due to its arbitrary nature and ineffective enforcement mechanisms. 

What was the Background of In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955? 

• The case concerns Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which was added in 1985 through the Citizenship (Amendment) Act following the Assam Accord - an agreement between the Indian government and Assam movement leaders. 
• Section 6A added special provisions for citizenship of migrants who came to Assam from Bangladesh, dividing them into two categories: 
  • Those who entered before 1st January 1966. 
  • Those who entered between 1st January 1966 and 25th March 1971. 
• The cut-off date of 25th March 1971 was chosen because it was when Bangladesh declared independence, leading to a significant refugee crisis. 
• The Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, a civil society group from Guwahati, challenged this provision in 2012, arguing that having different citizenship rules for Assam versus other states was discriminatory. 
• The petitioners also claimed the law violated fundamental constitutional principles including the right to cultural preservation, political rights of Assam's citizens, and the basic structure of India's democracy and federal system. 
• The legal challenge questioned whether Parliament had the constitutional authority to create special citizenship provisions for one state (Assam) that differed from the rest of India. 
• Main issue challenge was whether the law adequately protected Assam's indigenous population while addressing the humanitarian needs of migrants who had settled there over decades. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as constitutionally valid by a 4:1 majority, recognizing it as a legitimate legislative solution to address illegal migration in Assam. 
• Section 6A complies with Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution of India, 1950, as it specifically addresses migration to Assam with rational cut-off dates (1st January 1966 and 25th March 1971) based on historical events including the Bangladesh liberation movement. 
• The Court established three distinct classifications for immigrants in Assam:  
  • Pre-1966 migrants are deemed Indian citizens. 
  • 1966-1971 migrants may seek citizenship subject to eligibility conditions. 
  • Post 25th March 1971, migrants are classified as illegal immigrants subject to deportation. 
• The Court rejected arguments that Section 6A violates Article 29(1), finding insufficient evidence that Assamese cultural and linguistic rights were impaired by the provision's implementation. 
• The geographic specificity to Assam was upheld as reasonable, given the state's unique demographic impact from migration despite having a smaller land area compared to other border states. 
• The Court mandated enhanced enforcement mechanisms, directing the constitution of a monitoring bench to oversee implementation of detection and deportation processes for illegal immigrants. 
• The dissenting opinion (Justice Pardiwala) held Section 6A as unconstitutional with prospective effect, citing temporal unreasonableness and procedural defects in the detection mechanism. 
• The majority affirmed Parliament's legislative competence to enact Section 6A, finding it successfully balanced humanitarian concerns with local population interests. 
• The Court directed strengthening of Foreigners Tribunals and related statutory machinery to ensure time-bound implementation of the law's objectives. 

What is Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955? 

• Section 6A was enacted as a special provision to address citizenship of persons covered under the Assam Accord, specifically applying to territories included in the State of Assam before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985. 
• The provision defines a person of Indian origin as someone who, or whose parents or grandparents, was born in undivided India. 
• Section 6A creates two distinct categories of immigrants with different citizenship pathways:  
  • Persons who entered Assam before 1st January 1966: Deemed citizens of India from 1st January 1966 
  • Persons who entered between 1st January, 1966 and 24th March 1971: Eligible for citizenship after registration and a 10-year waiting period 
• For the 1966-1971 category, the law mandates:  
  • Detection as a foreigner by a Tribunal under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 
  • Mandatory registration with designated authorities 
  • Deletion of names from electoral rolls upon detection 
  • 10-year waiting period before full citizenship rights 
  • During the 10-year interim period, registered persons have:  
  • Same rights and obligations as Indian citizens (including passport rights) 
  • Restriction from participating in electoral processes 
  • Full citizenship rights after completion of the 10-year period 
• The provision includes opt-out mechanisms:  
  • 60-day window to declare non-desire for Indian citizenship for pre-1966 entrants 
  • Similar option for 1966-1971 entrants to opt out of the registration process 
• Section 6A explicitly excludes:  
  • Persons who were already Indian citizens before the 1985 amendment 
  • Individuals expelled from India under the Foreigners Act, 1946 
  • The provision holds overriding effect over other laws, unless expressly provided otherwise within Section 6A itself. 
  • "Specified territory" under this section refers to territories included in Bangladesh immediately before the 1985 amendment.