List of Current Affairs

Home / List of Current Affairs

Criminal Law

Conditions For Remission

 22-Oct-2024

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih laid down the law regarding conditions imposed while granting remission.                  

  • The Supreme Court held this in the case of Mafatbhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 

What was the Background of Mafatbhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors. Case? 

  • The Appellant was convicted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 147 and Section 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
  • He was sentenced to life imprisonment and the conviction of the appellant had attained finality. 
  • An order was passed by the High Court of Gujarat granting parole under Rule 19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. 
  • The present appeal arises out of the above order where the Court rejected the prayer. 
  • While arguing the appeal a submission was made on behalf of the appellant that the application for remission under Section 432 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) was not being considered by the State Government. 
  • The Home Department of the Government of Gujarat passed an order granting remission to the appellant. 
  • While granting remission by order dated 15th September 2023 four conditions were imposed. 
  • The two conditions under dispute are as follows: 
    • After the release from jail the prisoner shall behave decently for two years. 
    • If the prisoner after the release from   the   jail   carries   out   any cognizable   offence   or   inflict   any serious   injury   to   any   citizen   or property   then   he   will   be   arrested again   and  he  will  have   to   serve the remaining period of sentence in jail. 
  • The Appellant was aggrieved by the above two conditions.  

What were the Court’s Observations?

  • There is no doubt that the appropriate Government has the power to grant remission subject to compliance with the conditions. 
  • The law laid down with regard to remission by several judgments is that the decision to grant remission has to be well-informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned. (as held in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2015) and Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2013)). 
  • It is well settled that the power to remit a sentence is discretionary. The considerations for exercise of this power are: 
    • Public Interest 
    • The gravity and the nature of offences committed 
    • The antecedents of the convict 
  •  Further, it was also held that a convict cannot seek remission as a matter of right. The conditions imposed while exercising the power under Section 432 (1) of CrPC has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. 
  • The conditions imposed must stand the scrutiny of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
  • With Respect to Condition 1: 
    • The Court observed that the words ‘decent’ or ‘decently’ are not defined in CrPC or any other cognate legislation. 
    • As this term is not defined every person or authority may interpret it differently. Therefore, such a condition while granting remission becomes too subjective. 
    • The Court held that the condition imposed must not be ambiguous or difficult to enforce. 
    • Therefore, this condition was held to be arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of COI. 
  • With Respect to Condition 2:   
    • The Court in this case cited Section 432 (3) of CrPC which talks about cancellation of remission. 
    • In the case of Shaik Abdul Azeez v. State of Karnataka (1977) the Court held that in the light of the provision under Section 432 (2) on breach of any condition of remission there is not an automatic revival of sentence. 
    • In case the order granting remission is cancelled or revoked it will affect the liberty of the convict and the same cannot be exercised without following the principles of natural justice. 
    • The Court held that condition no.2cannot be interpreted to mean that every allegation of a breachthereof would automatically result in the cancellation of the order of  remission. Registration ofa cognizable  offence   against the convict, per se, is not a ground to cancel the remission order. 
    • Thus, the Court held that every breach cannot invite cancellation of the order of remission and the appropriate Government will have to consider the nature of breach alleged against the convict. 
    • A minor breach cannot be a ground to cancel remission and there must be some material to substantiate the allegations of breach. Hence, the Court held that depending on the seriousness and gravity action can be taken regarding cancellation of order of remission. 
  • The Court concluded on the above as follows: 
    • The remission under Section 432 (1) of CrPC or Section 473 (1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) can be granted unconditionally or subject to certain conditions.  
    • The decision to grant or not to grant remission has to be well-informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned. 
    • A convict cannot seek remission as a matter of right. However, he has a right to claim that his case for thegrant of remission ought to be considered in accordance with   the   law   and/or applicablepolicy   adopted   by   the appropriate Government. 
    • Conditions   imposed   while   exercising   the   power   under sub­section (1) of Section 432 or sub­section (1) of Section 473 of the BNSS must be reasonable. If the conditionsimposed are arbitrary, the conditions will stand vitiateddue to violation of Article 14. Such arbitrary conditionsmay violate the convict's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution 
    • The effect of remission results in restoration of liberty of the convict and in case the remission is cancelled it will affect the liberty of the convict and hence this drastic power should not be exercised without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, a show cause must be served on the convict before taking action to cancel/ withdraw remission. The concerned authority must give the convict an opportunity to file a reply and of being heard. 
    • Registration of cognizable offence per se is not a ground to cancel the remission order. Every case of breach does not invite cancellation of order of remission. Depending on the gravity and seriousness action can be taken under Section 432 (3) CrPC or Section 473 (3) of BNSS.

What is Remission under Section 473 of BNSS?

  • About:  
    • Section 473 of BNSS reproduces what was provided under Section 432 of CrPC. 
    • Section 473 of BNSS provides for power to suspend or remit sentences. 
  • Remission granted by whom and how (Section 473 (1)) : 
    • The Appropriate Government may grant remission at any time 
    • This may be granted without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts 
    • By way of remission the Appropriate Government may: 
      • Suspend the execution of sentence, or 
      • Remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.  
  • Opinion of the Presiding Judge required (Section 473 (2)): 
    • While considering the application for remission the Appropriate Government may require the Presiding Judge of the Court who has convicted the person to state his opinion. 
    • The opinion would be with regard as to whether application for remission should be granted or not. The above shall be accompanied with the following: 
      • Reasons for the opinion 
      • A certified copy of the record of the trial  
  • Cancellation of order of Remission (Section 473 (3)): 
    • If any condition on which the sentence has been remitted or suspended is not fulfilled 
    • The Appropriate Government may cancel the suspension or remission. 
    • Such a person may if at large be arrested by any police officer without warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence. 
  • Conditions for Presenting the Petition (Section 473 (5)): 
    • The Appropriate Government may give directions as to suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with. 
    • In case any sentence is passed on a person above 18 years of age who is sentenced no such petition shall be entertained by the person sentenced or by any other person unless the person sentenced is in jail and  
      • where such petition is made by the person sentenced, it is presented through the officer in charge of the jail; or 
      • where such petition is made by any other person, it contains a declaration that the person sentenced is in jail. 
  • Meaning of the term “Appropriate Government” (Section 473 (7)): 
    • in cases where the sentence is for an offence against, or the order referred to in sub-section (6) is passed under, any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government. 
    • in other cases, the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed. 

What are Landmark Judgments on Remission?  

  • Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal (2000) 
    • In this case, SC stipulated the factors that govern the grant of remission namely: 
      • Whether the offence is an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large? 
      • Whether there is any chance of future recurrence of committing crime? 
      • Whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime? 
      • Whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining this convict any more? 
      • Socio-economic condition of the convict’s family. 
  • Epuru Sudhakar v. State of AP (2006) 
    • SC held that judicial review of the order of remission is available on the following grounds: 
      • non-application of mind; 
      • order is mala fide; 
      • order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations; 
      • relevant materials kept out of consideration; 
      • order suffers from arbitrariness. 

Civil Law

Agreement to Sell Property under Joint Ownership

 22-Oct-2024

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News?

The Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff seeking specific performance of a property sale must secure consent from all co-owners. In a case involving five joint owners, the plaintiff's reliance on the brothers' assurances without the sisters' consent was deemed insufficient.  

  • Justices Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, and Prasanna B. Varale held in the matter of Janardan Das & Ors. v. Durga Prasad Agarwalla & Ors . 
  • The trial court denied the claim, but the High Court had allowed it, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court. 

What was the Background of Janardan Das & Ors. v. Durga Prasad Agarwalla & Ors ? 

  • The case involves a property dispute in Baripada, Odisha, originally owned by Late Surendranath Banerjee. 
  • After Surendranath's death on 3rd July 1980, the property was inherited equally by his five heirs: 
    • Two sons: Binayendra Banerjee (Defendant No. 1) and late Soumendra Nath Banerjee 
    • Three daughters: Smt. Rekha Mukherjee, Smt. Sikha Das, and Smt. Monila Pal (Defendant Nos. 6-8) 
  • On 14th April, 1993, there was an oral agreement between all co-owners and Defendant Nos. 9-11 (appellants) to sell the property for ₹4,20,000. 
  •  On 6th June, 1993, the plaintiffs (who operated a petrol pump on the property under a dealership with Hindustan Petroleum) entered into another agreement with only Defendant No. 1 and late Soumendra to purchase the property for ₹5,70,000, paying ₹70,000 as earnest money. 
  • Key points about the 6th June agreement: 
    • Only two brothers signed it, not the three sisters 
    • It stipulated that the sisters would come within three months to execute the sale deed 
    • The sale deed was to be executed before 30th September, 1993 
  • There was an unregistered General Power of Attorney (GPA) from 30th December, 1982, which allegedly gave Defendant No. 1 authority to act for his sisters. 
  • However, a registered partition deed from 17th February, 1988, had limited Defendant No. 1's authority to only collecting rent. 
  • On 27th September, 1993, all five co-owners (including the three sisters) executed a registered sale deed in favor of Defendant Nos. 9-11 for ₹4,20,000. 
  • Following this, the plaintiffs filed a suit (T.S. No. 103 of 1994) seeking: 
    • Specific performance of their June 6, 1993 agreement 
    • Alternatively, specific performance for the shares of Defendant No. 1 and late Soumendra 
  • The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed this decision and granted specific performance, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The Supreme Court observed that in contracts involving multiple parties with distinct interests, particularly when some parties are absent or non-signatories, the onus lies on the plaintiff to ensure all necessary consents and participations are secured to demonstrate readiness and willingness. 
  • The Court held that mere reliance on co-owners (Defendant No. 1 and late Soumendra) to procure their sisters for execution cannot absolve the plaintiffs of their responsibility to demonstrate readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 
  • The Court found that the plaintiffs' failure to contact the sisters, who are co-owners of a 3/5th share in the suit property, and their passive approach in not taking any proactive steps to secure their consent within the stipulated three-month period, demonstrated a lack of continuous readiness and willingness. 
  • Regarding the General Power of Attorney (GPA), the Court observed that it was effectively revoked by the subsequent registered partition deed of 1988, which specifically limited Defendant No. 1's authority to rent collection, with no power to sell the property on behalf of the sisters. 
  • The Court obser5ved that in contracts involving multiple owners of property, all co-owners must either personally execute the agreement to sell or duly authorize an agent through a valid and subsisting power of attorney, noting that an agent's authority must be clear and unambiguous. 
  • The Court observed that since the plaintiffs were cognizant that Defendant Nos. 6-8 were not parties to the agreement and their participation was necessary for a valid sale, they cannot claim belief in Defendant No. 1's authority to bind the sisters without their explicit consent. 

What is 16 (c) of The Specific Relief Act, 1963? 

  • About : 
    • Section 16 deals with Personal bars to relief. 
    • It states that specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person 
    • Section 16(c) states that who fails to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. 
  • Burden of Proof: 
    • The onus lies on the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness 
    • Must be demonstrated through evidence, not mere assertions 
    • Continuous readiness throughout the contract period must be shown 
  • Essential Terms: 
    • Readiness must relate to essential terms of the contract 
    • Must be terms specifically to be performed by the plaintiff 
    • Performance must be substantial and meaningful 
  • Exceptions: 
    • Terms prevented by defendant's actions 
    • Terms waived by the defendant 
    • Such terms need not be proved by the plaintiff 
  • Explanations to Section 16(c): 
    • First Explanation: 
      • Mere averment of readiness and willingness in the plaint is insufficient 
      • Must be supported by evidence 
      • The court must be satisfied about the genuine readiness 
    • Second Explanation: 
      • Requires the plaintiff to prove readiness according to the true construction of the contract 
      • Must align with the actual terms and intent of the contract 
      • Subjective interpretation by plaintiff is insufficient 

What is General Power of Attorney (GPA) ? 

  • About: 
    • A General Power of Attorney is a legal instrument through which a person (the principal) grants comprehensive authority to another person (the agent) to act on their behalf in various matters.  
    • This document enables the agent to make binding decisions and execute transactions for the principal, particularly useful during the principal's illness, disability, or absence.  
    • The authority granted is broad in scope and covers multiple aspects of legal, financial, and personal matters. 
  • Essential Elements 
    • Clear identification of both principal and agent with material particulars 
    • Comprehensive listing of powers granted to the agent 
    • Requirement for two witnesses 
    • Clear scope of authority 
    • Declaration of sound mind and voluntary execution 
  • Scope and Purpose 
    • GPA provides broad authority, not limited to specific transactions 
    • Covers varied matters unlike specific power of attorney 
    • Can include financial, legal, and business decisions 
    • Must clearly enumerate authorized powers and limitations 
    • Particularly useful during principal's absence or incapacity 
  • Legal Requirements for Validity 
    • Must contain material particulars of both principal and agent 
    • Requires attestation by two witnesses 
    • Should specify clear scope of delegated authority 
    • Must be executed while principal has legal capacity 
    • Should follow proper format and documentation requirements

Civil Law

Guidelines of SC to High Court for Pronouncing Judgment

 22-Oct-2024

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih laid down the law regarding conditions imposed while granting remission.                  

  • The Supreme Court held this in the case of Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar & Ors. v. State Of Gujarat & Ors. 

What was the Background of Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar & Ors. v. State Of Gujarat & Ors. Case? 

  • A civil appeal arose from a judgment and order dated 1st March 2023, from the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad. 
  • The appellant had filed R/Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 16th June 2015, passed by the Deputy Collector, Kamrej Prant, District Surat. 
  • The petition came up for hearing on 1st March 2023, where the judge verbally pronounced "dismissed" without expressing that reasons would follow. 
  • More than a year later, on 30th April 2024, the appellant's counsel received from the IT Cell of the High Court a soft copy of a reasoned order dated 1st March 2023. 
  • Investigation revealed that the judge had actually dictated the reasoned order on 12th April 2024, to his personal secretary, which was then uploaded on 30th April 2024. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

  • Issue of Judicial Delay and Documentation: 
    • The Court expressed concern about the persistent ignoring of binding precedents by High Courts regarding prompt delivery of judgments. 
    • The Court emphasized that neglect/omission/refusal to abide by binding precedents affects the administration of justice. 
  • Analysis of the Judge's Actions: 
    The Court found that the High Court judge had breached judicial norms by:  
    • Not expressing that reasons would follow when dismissing the petition 
    • Writing a detailed reasoned order after a year's delay 
    • Ante-dating the order to March 1, 2023 
  • Guidelines for Future Practice: 
    • The Court laid down guidelines for pronouncing judgments:  
    • When using the practice of pronouncing operative part with "reasons to follow," reasons should be made available:  
      • Preferably within 2 days 
      • Not beyond 5 days in any case 
    • If reasons cannot be provided within 5 days, the judgment should be reserved 
    • In cases affecting parties' status or subject matter, Order XX of CPC should be strictly followed 
  • Final Orders: 
    • The impugned order dated March 1, 2023, was set aside 
    • The petition was restored to the High Court's file 
    • The Chief Justice was requested to place the petition before the appropriate judge for fresh consideration 
    • The new hearing should be uninfluenced by observations in the March 1, 2023 order 
  • Notable Observations: 
    • The Court emphasized the principle that "justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done". 
    • Acknowledged the heavy workload of High Court judges while stressing the importance of maintaining judicial standards. 
    • Emphasized the need for balance between efficiency and proper judicial procedure. 

What is Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950?  

  • After independence, when our Constitution came into force, Article 141 was enforced, which strengthened the status of judicial precedents in the Indian legal system. 
  • Article 141 states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. 
  • The law declared has to be construed as a principle of law that emanates from a judgment, or an interpretation of law or judgment by the Supreme Court, upon which the case is decided. 

What is Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)? 

  • Pronouncement of Judgment 
    • General Courts: 
      • Must pronounce judgment in open court either immediately or as soon as practicable 
      • If delayed, should be pronounced within 30 days of hearing conclusion 
      • In exceptional cases, can be extended up to 60 days with due notice 
    • Commercial Courts: 
      • Must pronounce judgment within 90 days of arguments conclusion 
      • Copies to be issued to all parties via email or other means 
    • Written Judgment Requirements: 
      • Sufficient to read out findings on each issue and final order 
      • Can be dictated to shorthand writer if judge is specially empowered 
      • Transcript must be corrected, signed by judge, and dated 
  • Judgment Signing and Modification 
    • Signing Requirements: 
      • Must be dated and signed by Judge in open court during pronouncement 
      • Once signed, cannot be altered except under section 152 or on review 
      • A judge can pronounce judgment written but not pronounced by predecessor 
    • Content Requirements for Different Courts: 
      • Small Cause Courts: Only need points for determination and decisions 
      • Other Courts: Must contain:  
        • Concise case statement 
        • Points for determination 
        • Decision 
        • Reasons for decision 
  • Decree Preparation and Content 
    • Time Frame: 
      • Must be prepared within 15 days of judgment pronouncement 
      • Appeals can be filed without decree copy 
      • When decree is drawn, judgment ceases to have decree effect 
    • Essential Contents: 
      • Must match with judgment 
      • Must include:  
        • Suit number 
        • Names and descriptions of parties 
        • Registered addresses 
        • Claim particulars 
        • Clear specification of relief granted 
        • Cost details and allocation 
        • Date of judgment pronouncement 
  • Special Types of Decrees 
    • Property-Related: 
      • Immovable Property: Must contain sufficient property description with boundaries/numbers 
      • Movable Property: Must state alternative money payment if delivery impossible 
    • Payment-Related: 
      • Can include installment payment provisions 
      • Can postpone payments with or without interest 
      • Can be modified post-decree with consent of decree-holder 
    • Specific Cases: 
      • Partnership Dissolution: Preliminary decree declaring shares and dissolution date 
      • Administration Suits: Preliminary decree ordering accounts and inquiries 
      • Pre-emption Suits: Must specify payment deadline and possession transfer terms 
      • Partition Suits: Must declare rights of parties and provide partition directions 
  • Documentation and Copies 
    • Judgment Copies: 
      • Must be made available immediately after pronouncement 
      • Parties can obtain copies for appeal purposes 
      • Charges as specified by High Court rules 
    • Certification: 
      • Certified copies of judgment and decree to be furnished to parties on application 
      • Parties must bear the expenses of obtaining copies 
  • Appeal Information 
    • Court must inform unrepresented parties about:  
      • Which court to appeal to 
      • Period of limitation for filing appeal 
      • Must record this information