List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News?

The Supreme Court has quashed a criminal case against HDFC Bank Ltd. for allegedly violating an Income Tax Department notice that prohibited the operation of bank accounts, fixed deposits, and lockers of an income tax assessee. The court set aside a High Court decision that had allowed the case to proceed, clarifying that the bank acted within the scope of the notice after the IT Department modified its restrictions. 

• Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan held in the matter of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. 
• The court stated that the FIR must demonstrate fraudulent inducement and criminal intent (mens rea) from the crime, which was clearly lacking in the case involving HDFC Bank, as it is a juristic person. 

What was the Background of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. The State of Bihar &    Ors.? 

• The Income Tax Department conducted search operation in October 2021 at several locations in Patna, including properties belonging to Sunita Khemka and others. 
• During this search, the IT Department issued a notice to HDFC Bank under Section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 to stop operations of bank accounts, fixed deposits, and lockers of certain individuals, including Sunita Khemka. 
• On 1st November 2021, the IT Department issued another order allowing only the operation of bank accounts (not lockers) for some individuals including Sunita Khemka. 
• However, on 9th November 2021, HDFC Bank officials allowed Sunita Khemka to operate her bank locker, which was discovered during another IT Department search on 20th November 2021. 
• Bank officials claimed this was due to a misinterpretation of the November 1 order, where they mistakenly thought the permission extended to lockers as well as accounts. 
• The IT Department filed a criminal complaint, leading to an FIR against HDFC Bank officials for various offenses including criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal conspiracy. 
• HDFC Bank approached the Patna High Court to quash the FIR, but the High Court dismissed their petition. 
• The bank then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that:  
  • The FIR didn't show any criminal intent (mens rea) on part of the bank officials 
  • The case arose from a genuine misinterpretation of orders 
  • The allegations didn't constitute criminal offenses 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held that for constituting an offense under Section 420 IPC (cheating), the FIR must establish fraudulent inducement and criminal intent (mens rea) at inception, which was conspicuously absent in the present matter concerning HDFC Bank, being a juristic person. 
• With respect to Sections 406 and 409 IPC,1860 (criminal breach of trust), the Court observed that the essential ingredient of entrustment of property and its subsequent misappropriation or conversion for one's own use was entirely missing from the allegations leveled against the appellant bank. 
• The Court determined that since offenses under Sections 206, 217, and 201 IPC,1860 necessitate the presence of mens rea, and the provisions under Sections 34, 37, and 120B IPC,1860 require common intention or intentional cooperation in commission of offenses, these charges were unsustainable against the appellant bank. 
• Applying the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana,1990 the Court found that the present case fell within categories 2 and 3 of the established guidelines, wherein the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR failed to disclose the commission of any cognizable offense. 
• The Court concluded that continuation of criminal proceedings against HDFC Bank would cause undue hardship, and consequently quashed the FIR registered at Gandhi Maidan Police Station, Patna, setting aside the High Court's order that had declined to quash the same. 

What is a Juristic Person? 

• About:  
  • A juristic person is an artificial entity recognized by law as having rights, duties, and obligations distinct from its members or creators. 
  • The Supreme Court in Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee v. Som Nath Dass (2000) established that a juristic person is not a natural person, but an artificially created entity recognized by law. 
  • Juristic persons have the capacity to sue and be sued, own property, enter into contracts, and bear legal responsibilities. 
  • The concept encompasses both incorporated and unincorporated entities that are granted legal personality. 
  • Unlike natural persons, juristic persons act through representatives or agents appointed for conducting their affairs. 
• Nature of Juristic Person: 
  • A juristic person possesses a distinct legal personality separate from its constituent members or creators. 
  • The entity has perpetual succession, meaning its existence continues regardless of changes in membership. 
  • Juristic persons can own property, incur debts, and enter into legal relationships in their own name. 
  • They are subject to both rights and duties under the law, similar to natural persons. 
  • The legal personality is a creation of law and can be modified or terminated by law.
• Definition By Different Jurists: 
  • German Jurist Zielmana's Definition 
    • "Personality is the legal capacity of will" 
    • "The bodiliness of men for their personality is a wholly irrelevant attribute" 
    • Focuses on the capacity to exercise legal will rather than physical existence 
  • Salmond's Definition 
    • "A person is any being to whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties" 
    • "Any being that is so capable is a person whether human being or not" 
    • "Nothing that is not so capable is a person even though he be a man" 
    • Emphasizes capability over human nature 
    • Centers on legal capacity rather than physical existence 
  • Gray's Definition 
    • Defines a person as "entity to which rights and duties may be attributed" 
    • Any being capable of holding a right or duty is a person in law 
    • Applies regardless of whether it's a human being or not 
    • Recognizes that some persons may have duties but no rights (e.g., slaves historically) 
    • Focuses on the ability to bear legal rights and obligations 
  • G.W. Paton's Definition 
    • Legal personality is a medium through which units are created 
    • These units are vessels in whom rights can be vested 
    • Emphasizes the instrumental nature of legal personality 
    • Views legal personality as a mechanism rather than an inherent quality 
    • Focuses on the function of legal personality in rights allocation 
  • Austin's Definition 
    • Includes all physical and natural persons 
    • Encompasses every being which can be deemed human 
    • Considered incomplete in view of modern legal personality developments 
    • Limited to human beings 
    • Does not account for non-human legal persons 
  • Indian Penal Code Definition (Section 11) 
    • Includes natural human beings 
    • Encompasses any company or association 
    • Covers corporate bodies, whether incorporated or not 
    • Provides a broader definition than mere human personality 
    • Recognizes both natural and artificial persons 

Corporate Personality as a Juristic Person  

Corporations are recognized as independent legal entities distinct from their shareholders. 

• Corporate personality enables limited liability, protecting individual members from company debts. 
• Companies have perpetual succession and can own property in their own name. 
• The corporate veil can be lifted in cases of fraud or where public interest demands. 
• Companies can sue and be sued independently of their members. 
• Corporate personality is a creation of law, recognized in both English and Indian law, giving artificial persons the capacity to have rights, duties, and hold property distinct from their individual members. 
• For a corporation to have juristic personality, three conditions must exist:  
  • a group of persons associated for a purpose,  
  • organs through which it functions, and  
  • attribution of legal fiction. 
• A "Corporation Sole" is a legal concept where successive individuals hold a perpetual office (like the Crown of England or President of India), and the legal personality continues even after the natural person's death - exemplified by the maxim "The King is dead, long live the King." 
  • An artificial/legal person differs from natural persons in that it:  
  • Is not merely the sum of its members 
  • Has its own claims and liabilities separate from members 
  • Holds property independently of its members 
  • Has agents who don't directly represent individual members 
• A corporation aggregate is an association of individuals united for furthering certain interests, with companies being the primary example, where shareholders contribute capital for the company's advancement. 
• Legal personality extends beyond just companies to include banks, railways, universities, colleges, temples, hospitals, and other institutions, as recognized by Article 300 of the Constitution of India. 

Other Entities as Juristic Person  

• Religious Entities as Juristic Persons 
  • Deities in Hindu law are recognized as juristic persons capable of holding property. 
  • Temples, once consecrated, can have independent legal existence. 
  • Religious institutions can sue and be sued through their authorized representatives. 
  • Management of religious entities' property is conducted through trustees or shebaits. 
  • The status of juristic personality extends only to publicly consecrated idols. 
• State as Juristic Person 
  • The State is recognized as a juristic person under Article 300 of the Indian Constitution. 
  • State governments can sue and be sued in their own name. 
  • The state holds sovereign rights and duties distinct from its officers. 
  • Government departments function as extensions of state's juristic personality. 
  • The state's legal personality enables it to enter into contracts and international agreements. 
• Modern Extensions of Juristic Personality 
  • Environmental entities like rivers have been recognized as juristic persons in some jurisdictions. 
  • Artificial Intelligence entities are being considered for juristic personality in some legal systems. 
  • Animals have been granted limited juristic rights in certain jurisdictions. 
  • Non-profit organizations and trusts are recognized as juristic persons. 
  • International organizations possess juristic personality in international law.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons   has held that Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(BNSS) should be implemented effectively in all the states. 

What was the Background of In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons Case? 

• In the present case, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal is serving as the Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) in this matter and has submitted a note summarizing information received from various states. 
• Seven States - Bihar, Punjab, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Odisha, and Kerala have submitted detailed information about their prison conditions. 
• Three states - Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and West Bengal - have submitted voluminous reports exceeding 300 pages each. 
• Additional affidavits have been received from five states - Telangana, Assam, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra. 
• The case involves review of: 
  • Prison overcrowding 
  • Infrastructure improvements needed 
  • Special facilities for women prisoners 
  • Facilities for children lodged with their mothers 
  • Basic amenities like toilets, bathrooms, and kitchens 
  • Medical facilities including de-addiction centers 
  • Construction of new jails and expansion of existing ones 
• Various committees have been constituted under District and Sessions Judges to examine and make recommendations about prison conditions in different states. 
• The matter relates to ensuring fundamental rights of prisoners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (COI). 
• This is an ongoing case where the Supreme Court is monitoring the implementation of prison reforms and improvements across various states in India. 

What were the Court’s Observation? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • That State governments and Union Territory administrations have not fully recognized the severity of the prison conditions situation. 
  • The Court noted a sense of lethargy and lack of urgency in addressing prison issues, observing that state counsel typically just ask for more time rather than providing concrete solutions. 
  • The Court found the State of Bihar's approach particularly unsatisfactory, noting that they were being casual about urgent matters that cannot be dealt with lightly. 
  • Regarding approval processes, the Court observed there was no valid reason for delays in granting approvals for various prison improvement projects. 
  • The Court expressed concern that leaving matters to Prison Superintendents was ineffective since they are junior-most officers who cannot influence higher-level decisions. 
  • The Court pointed out that simply having a large campus area doesn't automatically mean enhanced prison capacity - proper facilities for each prisoner are what matter. 
  • The Court emphasized that proper prison facilities should include: 
    • Adequate sleeping area 
    • Mobility within the prison 
    • Kitchen and food facilities 
    • Health facilities 
    • Other basic amenities 
  • The Court firmly stated that prisoners are protected under Article 21 of COI and retain their fundamental rights even while in custody. 
  • The Court observed that many problems identified in earlier judgments (like Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka) continue to persist in Indian jails today. 
  • The Court stressed that all stakeholders need to "rise to the occasion" and fulfill their obligations as quickly as possible, rather than treating these matters casually. 
  • The Court found it "most unfortunate" that State counsels couldn't properly address the Court's queries due to lack of proper instructions from their respective states. 
  • The Court observed that states need to look at prison issues holistically, including both infrastructure and staffing needs like wardens, cooks, doctors, and other jail staff. 
• The Supreme Court, based on the above observations, held that Section 479 of BNSS should be implemented effectively in all the States. 

Who is Considered as an Undertrial? 

• An undertrial is an accused person who is being held in custody by a court of law and is awaiting trial for a crime. 
• As per the 78th Law Commission Report, an undertrial also includes a person who is in judicial custody on remand during investigation. 

What is the Status of Undertrials in India? 

• Undertrials constitute 77% or three times the number of convicts. 
• As per the Prison Statistics India 2021 records: 
  • The number of undertrial prisoners has increased from 3,71,848 in 2020 to 4,27,165 in 2021 having increased by 14.9% during this period. 
  • Among the 4,27,165 undertrial prisoners, the highest number of undertrial prisoners was lodged in District Jails (51.4%, 2,19,529 undertrials) followed by Central Jails (36.2%, 1,54,447 undertrials) and Sub Jails (10.4%, 44,228 undertrials) as of 31st December 2021. 
  • Uttar Pradesh has reported the maximum number of undertrials (21.2%, 90,606 undertrials) in the country followed by Bihar (13.9%, 59,577 undertrials) and Maharashtra (7.4%, 31,752 undertrials) at the end of 2021. 
  • Among the 4,27,165 undertrial prisoners, only 53 were civil inmates. 
  • Out of 5,54,034 prisoners, 68% belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. 

What are the Issues Faced by Undertrials? 

• Prisons are dangerous places and so undertrials are subjected to abuse and violence such as physical mishandling, torture, group violence. 
• Many prisoners are unable to get bail due to lack of economic resources. 
• Most of them face problems of overcrowding and shortage of adequate space to lodge prisoners in safe and healthy conditions. 
• In the absence of the earning member of the family, the family is forced into destitution with children going astray. 
• They often get neglected in jail for many years, and in some cases, it exceeds the maximum sentence for the crime they had committed. 
• Circumstantial and young offenders often turn into full-fledged criminals. 

What is the Maximum Period for which Undertrial Prisoner can be Detained under Section 479 of BNSS?  

• Section 479 (1) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Sanhita of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death or life imprisonment has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on bail:  
  • Provided that where such person is a first-time offender (who has never been convicted of any offence in the past) he shall be released on bond by the Court, if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence under that law:   
  • Provided further that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail bond instead of his bond:   
  • Provided also that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law.   
  • Explanation. —In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded.  
• The Subsection (2) provides that: Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), and subject to the third proviso thereof, where an investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not be released on bail by the Court.  
• The Subsection (3) provides that the Superintendent of jail, where the accused person is detained, on completion of one-half or one-third of the period mentioned in sub-section (1), as the case may be, shall forthwith make an application in writing to the Court to proceed under sub-section (1) for the release of such person on bail.   

What are the New Features Introduced by Section 479 of BNSS?  

• The new features introduced by Section 479 of BNSS are as follows:  
  • There is a provision for release of first-time offenders in case they have undergone detention of period extending upto one third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence.  
  • A new provision added by way of sub section 2 is that an under-trial prisoner shall not be released on bail if an investigation, inquiry or trial in more than offence or in multiple cases is pending against him.  
  • Further, sub section 3 is added which provides that bail can be granted on the report of the Superintendent of jail.  

What are Landmark Cases cited in this Case?  

• Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980):  
  • This is the landmark case on Anticipatory bail.  
  • The Court in this case held that the object of the bail is to secure attendance of the accused at the trial.  
  • The proper test to be applied while determining if the bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial.  
• Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy. State of Bihar (1980):  
  • The Court in this case declared that the right to speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Constitution.  
• Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992):  
  • It is the obligation of the State or complainant to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude.  
  • In a given case where the accused demands speedy trial and is not given one may be a relevant factor in his favour.  
• Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022):  
  • The Court held that the provision contained in Section 436 A of CrPC will apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision.  
  • The court also stated that certain responsibility and accountability is expected form the courts, authorities and police officers to follow the concept presumption of innocence which entails that no purpose is fulfilled by arresting a person until proven guilty. 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain laid down that an Official memorandum cannot supersede the Recruitment Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).                  

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of Union of India & Ors v. Jagdish Singh & Ors. 

What was the Background of Union of India & Ors v. Jagdish Singh & Ors. Case? 

• The Respondents in this case were promoted as Joint Commissioners of Income Tax (CIT), along with their juniors on 17th September 2010. 
• Officers' junior to the respondents who were promoted along with him have been promoted as Additional CIT. 
• As a response to the above the respondents filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) alleging that the promotion of the respondents’ juniors was violative of sub-Rules 3 and 4 of Rule 7 of Schedule II to the Indian Revenue Services Rules, 2015 (IRS Rules) read with Note 1 below the said Rule. 
• It was the case of the Respondent that the respondents were entitled to two years relaxation in being considered for promotion to the NFSG. 
• The Petitioner however contended that the grant of NFSG is only a placement on a higher scale and not a promotion. 
• The Learned Tribunal rejected the contention of the petitioners. 
  • The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) where it was held that an Official memorandum cannot supersede the Recruitment Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
  • It was held that an OM, being an executive instruction, could only supplement the statutory Recruitment Rules, and could not supplant it. 
  • The Tribunal therefore held that respondents would be entitled to be promoted along with their juniors who were promoted w.e.f 1st January 2022.
• Thus, Union of India petitioned this Court under Article 226 of the COI.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court held that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) Official Memorandum (OM) cannot supersede or hold contrary to the Rules under Article 309 of COI. 
• It is to be noted that the IRS Rules were promulgated under Article 309 of COI. 
• Therefore, the Court held that the conclusions laid down by the Tribunal are correct and the respondents are entitled to benefit of the IRS Rules. 
• Thus, the Court held that the Respondents are entitled to be promoted as Additional CIT along with other juniors. 
• Hence, the writ petition was dismissed. 

What is Article 309 of COI? 

• About: 
  • Article 309 of the COI provides for Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State. 
  • Article 309, as part of the chapter on services under the Union and the States, reflects the framers' intent to establish a merit-based, efficient, and impartial civil service system. 
  • Article 309 grants the authority to the appropriate legislature (Parliament or State Legislature) to enact laws regulating the recruitment and conditions of service for public servants. 
  • This includes the power to prescribe the mode of appointment, the tenure of office, and the disciplinary matters concerning government employees. 
• Constituents of Article 309: 
  • This provision is subject to the provisions of the Constitution 
  • It provides that the Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate: 
    • Recruitment 
    • Conditions of Service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with affairs of the Union or of any State. 
• Proviso to Article 309: 
  • The following can make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this Article: 
    • President or such other person as he may direct in case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union. 
    • Governor of a State or such other person as he may direct in case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State.

What are the Landmark Judgments on Article 309 of COI and Office Memorandum?  

• Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013): 
  • The Court held that it is a settled proposition of law that an authority cannot issue orders/office memorandums/executive instructions that are in contravention of statutory rules. 
  • Instructions can be issued to supplement the statutory rules and not to supplant them. 
  • Thus, the Court held that an OM could not supersede Recruitment Rules promulgated under Article 309 of COI.