List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

The Bombay High Court in the case of Kailas Pawar v. State of Maharashtra stated the strict implementation of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act to combat drug trafficking and abuse. Justice Govind Sanap, hearing a case involving 39 kilograms of ganja, warned that unchecked drug use could harm society and destroy the future of the younger generation.

• The court urged all stakeholders to ensure diligent enforcement to protect societal well-being.

What was the Background of Kailas Pawar v. State of Maharashtra Case?

• The case originated from a secret tip received by Police Inspector Sagar Hatwar (PW-7) of the Crime Branch, Akola, on 23^thSeptember, 2020, about two individuals - Raju Solanke and Kailas Pawar - possessing ganja for sale within the Akot Gramin Police Station jurisdiction.
• After receiving proper authorization from SP Akola, PSI Hatwar organized a raid team including panch witnesses, a photographer, a vendor with weighing equipment, and requested an SDPO as an independent gazetted officer.
• The raid was conducted at around 4:30 PM near Marimata temple, where both accused were found sitting in a tarpaulin hut under a Neem tree.
• During the search, police recovered 18 plastic packets contained in a sack, totaling 39 kilograms of suspected ganja, from which three samples of 100 grams each were drawn and properly sealed.
• Based on information from the two accused, the police then conducted a second raid at the house of one Shatrughna Chavhan (accused No. 3) in village Borva, where they recovered an additional 107.90 kilograms of ganja in five big sacks hidden beneath a cot.
• The entire process of recovery, search, seizure, and panchanama was video recorded, and all seized materials were properly inventoried under magistrate's supervision before being stored in the malkhana.
• Chemical analysis confirmed the seized substance as ganja, leading to the filing of a charge sheet against the two main accused (Kailas Pawar and Raju Solanke), Shatrughna Chavhan, and the owner of the vehicle used for transportation from Andhra Pradesh.
• The trial court convicted Kailas Pawar and Raju Solanke, sentencing them to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,20,000 each, while acquitting accused No. 3 and 4.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court expressed concern that despite numerous observations by the Apex Court and High Court regarding proper implementation of NDPS Act provisions, these concerns have not effectively percolated down to the concerned authorities.
• The Court identified the present case as exemplifying a failure in the exercise of powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by the presiding officer, noting that such conduct of trial proceedings could lead to potential injustice.
• The Court emphasized that proper exercise of powers by the presiding officer can enhance trial quality and ultimate adjudication, particularly in cases under special legislation like the NDPS Act.
• Regarding the evidentiary aspects, the Court noted that proving the contents of the CD would necessitate recalling all witnesses from the raiding party to describe/translate the video recording's contents, making the option of recording additional evidence inappropriate.
• The Court found it "unfathomable" that the in-charge prosecutor did not recommend an appeal against the acquittal of accused No. 3 to the Law and Judiciary department, particularly given the recovery of 107.90 kilograms of ganja from his house.
• The Court determined that retrial would be the best option in the interests of both the appellants and prosecution, particularly considering the need for proper examination of electronic evidence and subsequent recording of statements under Section 313.
• The Court directed that the judgment be circulated to all Principal District Judges in Maharashtra for necessary steps and instructed the Registrar General and Registrar (Inspection-I) to ensure that similar drawbacks in proceedings are identified during court inspections to prevent such mistakes in future.
• The Court ordered the completion of the retrial within three months from the date of receipt of case records, while granting liberty to the accused/appellants to move bail applications before the trial judge.

What is the Impact of NDPS on the Young Generation?

• Impact on Younger Generation:
  • The misuse and trafficking of narcotics, if unchecked, can destroy the younger generation, which forms the future of the nation.
  • The judgment stresses that India has a predominantly young population, with an average age of 30-35 years, making the issue of drug abuse particularly concerning.
• Societal Concerns:
  • Drug addiction is described as a menace to society, capable of eroding its foundations by affecting the younger demographic.
• Responsibility of Stakeholders:
  • The judiciary, law enforcement, and other stakeholders are urged to scrupulously implement the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act to prevent such societal damage.

What are the Provisions for Granting Probation Under the NDPS Act and Related Laws for Juveniles and Adults?

• A person who is aged 18 years or above, convicted under the NDPS Act, cannot claim benefits under Section 360 of CrPC or the Probation of Offenders Act, except for offenses under Sections 26 or 27.
• A person below 18 years of age (juvenile) convicted under the NDPS Act can get benefits of probation under Section 360 CrPC and Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
• Juveniles (under 18) convicted under NDPS Act may be:
  • Released on probation of good conduct
  • Placed under supervision of a probation officer
  • Given a chance of reformation instead of imprisonment
• The special protection/benefits for juveniles reflect the reformative approach of justice system towards young offenders, even in serious NDPS cases.
• For offenses under Sections 26 (cultivation of cannabis) and 27 (consumption of drugs), probation benefits are available regardless of age of the convicted person.

Case Law

Shivraj Gorakh Satpute v. State of Maharashtra (2023)

• The case involved a bail application under Section 439 of CrPC by a 22-year-old accused found with 50 kg of ganja (commercial quantity), following a chain of arrests where two other accused were caught with 22 kg and 10 kg of ganja respectively.
• The Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) team conducted the search and seizure between sunset and sunrise without any warrant/authorization and failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act.
• The court observed that since the NCB had specific information about the accused at 3 PM but conducted the search after sunset without justification, this made the recovery of contraband doubtful.
• The court noted procedural lapses in sample collection as the NCB took samples without following Section 52-A of NDPS Act, which created serious doubt about the prosecution's case regarding recovery of contraband.
• Considering the accused's young age, lack of criminal history, doubtful recovery circumstances, and the principle that prolonged custody infringes fundamental rights under Article 21, the High Court granted bail with conditions including restriction on leaving the state.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale held that plea of adverse possession cannot be raised by the State against private citizens.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of State of Haryana v. Amit Lal (Since Deceased) Through Lrs.

What was the Background of State of Haryana v. Amit Lal (Since Deceased) Through Lrs Case?

• The dispute pertains to a piece of land in Haryana.
• The original plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of suit property before the Court of Sub-judge 1^st class.
• It was the claim of the plaintiffs that they were entitled to the land on the basis of the revenue records and alleged that the defendants had unauthorizedly occupied the land.
• The defendants (State of Haryana) in their written statement asserted that they were in adverse possession of the land and hence had become owner of the land.
• The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
• The judgment of the Trial Court was set aside by the First Appellate Court.
• However, the High Court allowed the second appeal setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the decree passed by the Trial Court.
• Aggrieved by the decision the appellants have preferred the appeal before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• One of the first points that the Court pointed out in this case was that there was no specific denial of the plea of ownership of the plaintiff.
• The Court held that the appellants in their written statement did not specifically deny the ownership of the plaintiff and instead they relied on the plea of adverse possession.
• As per Order VIII Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) allegations not denied specifically are deemed to be admitted.
• Thus, by asserting adverse possession the appellants have impliedly admitted the title of the plaintiff.
• Further, the Court held that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of it’s own citizens.
• The Court further observed that allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the government
• Adverse possession requires possession that is continuous, open, peaceful, and hostile to the true owner for the statutory period.
  • The Court observed that the appellants' possession lacks the element of hostility and the requisite duration in the present case.
• Thus, the Court held that the plaintiffs have established their ownership of the suit property and the State cannot claim adverse possession against it’s own citizens.

What is Adverse Possession?

Meaning:

• Adverse possession is a doctrine under which a person in possession of land owned by someone else may acquire valid title to it.
• Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA)
  • Section 27 is an exception to the general principle of law of limitation
  • If a person fails to file a suit for recovery of possession within the specified time period, their right to recover possession or ownership of the property is extinguished.
• Article 65, Schedule I of LA:
  • Imposes a 12-year limitation period for suits for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title.

History:

• The concept of adverse possession was born in England.
• The doctrine was designed to prevent legal disputes over property rights that were time consuming and costly.
• It was also created to prevent waste of land by forcing the owners to monitor their property or suffer the consequence of losing the title.

Elements for proving adverse possession:

• Actual
  • Physical occupation or use of the property as a true owner would.
• Open
  • Visible and apparent possession, not hidden or secretive.
• Notorious
  • Widely known in the community, such that others would recognize the trespasser as the apparent owner.
• Hostile
  • Possession without the true owner's permission, infringing on their rights.
• Exclusive
  • Sole control by the trespasser, excluding the true owner and others.
• Continuous
  • Uninterrupted possession for the full statutory period (e.g., 12 years for private land, 30 years for government land).

What is Public Property and Private Property?

• Public Property
  • Ownership: Owned collectively by the public, typically managed by the government or public authorities.
  • Purpose: Exists to serve the needs of society as a whole (e.g., parks, roads, schools, libraries).
  • Access: Accessible to the general public, often free or for a nominal fee.
  • Usage: Designed for communal use, and individuals cannot claim exclusive rights over it.
  • Examples: Public transportation, government buildings, community parks, and public utilities.
• Private Property
  • Ownership: Owned by individuals, businesses, or private entities.
  • Purpose: Serves the interests of the owner(s), who have the right to control, use, or dispose of it as they wish.
  • Access: Restricted to the owner or those granted permission.
  • Usage: Used for personal, commercial, or organizational purposes, often with exclusive rights.
  • Examples: Homes, personal vehicles, private businesses, and intellectual property.

What are the Rights of the State over Private Property of Citizens?

• Following are the rights of the State over the private property of citizens:
  • Right to Acquire Private Property (Eminent Domain)
    • The state has the power to acquire private property for public purposes such as infrastructure projects, urban development, or industrial projects.
    • Legal Framework:
    • Governed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013.
    • Compensation must be provided to the property owner at a fair market value.
    • Rehabilitation and resettlement are mandated for those displaced.
  • Restrictions on use of property
    • The state can regulate the use of private property to ensure it aligns with public welfare.
    • Examples:
      • Zoning laws restricting land use for commercial, residential, or agricultural purposes.
      • Environmental laws preventing harmful activities on private land.
  • Right to Tax Private Property
    • The state can levy taxes on private property, such as property tax, wealth tax (abolished in 2015), and stamp duty on property transactions.
  • Regulation for social Justice
    • The state can impose regulations on private property to promote equitable distribution of resources.
    • Example: Land ceiling laws in some states to limit the amount of land owned by an individual or entity.
  • Eviction or Acquisition for Public Welfare
    • In cases of emergency (e.g., natural disasters, public safety concerns), the state can temporarily acquire or restrict access to private property.
  • Prohibition of Illegal use or misuse
    • The state has the authority to intervene if private property is used for illegal activities, such as smuggling or harboring criminals. In extreme cases, the property can be seized.
  • No right of Adverse Possession
    • In the case of Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) the Court held that the State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years.
    • It was held that the State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been done in the present case.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Court on its Own Motion v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors has issued directions that have been issued in pursuance of ensuring proper environmental standards and public health safety in the NCT of Delhi.

What was the Background of Court on its Own Motion v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors Case?

• The Delhi High Court initiated a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in 2022, taking cognizance of an article published in the Times of India dated 18^th June, 2022.
• The primary concerns that led to the initiation of said PIL were:
  • Lack of rainwater harvesting efforts by the authorities
  • Severe traffic congestion, particularly during monsoon season
• The matter involves multiple statutory bodies including:
  • Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)
  • Delhi Jal Board (DJB)
  • Office of the Chief Secretary, Delhi Government
• The case concerns the operation of Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT) and their discharge into the River Yamuna.
• The matter involves issues related to:
  • Management of drainage systems
  • Rejuvenation of water bodies
  • Maintenance of the Yamuna River and its flood plains
  • Implementation of rainwater harvesting measures
• Photographic evidence from Taimur Nagar main drain was presented before the Court during the proceedings.
• A photograph published in India Today dated 7th November showing a devotee offering Chhath Puja in River Yamuna was brought to the Court's attention.
• The Special Secretary, IDMC made a presentation before the Court outlining various steps taken and proposed timelines for compliance with previous directions.
• The matter pertains to unauthorized polluting industries in residential areas discharging waste into the drains, which subsequently flow into the Yamuna River.
• The instant matter involves issues of desilting of 22 main drains, sewers, and storm water drains within the jurisdiction of Delhi.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Delhi High Court observed that:
  • The STPs in the NCT are not functioning as per required norms.
  • Raw sewage is being released into the Yamuna River, contrary to established environmental standards.
  • The Court has noted with dissatisfaction the desilting operations of the 22 main drains, sewers, and storm water drains carried out by the statutory agencies.
  • The chemical foaming evidenced in the photograph of Chhath Puja contradicts the data furnished before the Court regarding sewage treatment standards.
  • The presentation given by the Special Secretary regarding sewage treatment measures "did not appear to be accurate."
• The Delhi High Court has issued the following directions for the protection of Yamuna River
  • In relation to STPs monitoring:
    • Tamper-proof meters must be installed to record:
      • Operational timings of STPs
      • Electricity consumption of STPs
  • In relation to data transparency:
    • The Delhi High Court ordered that all operational data must be uploaded in real-time on the websites of:
    • CPCB
    • DJB
    • Delhi Government Chief Secretary's Office
  • In relation to discharge monitoring:
    • Mandated that all STPs must install sensors at discharge points where treated water enters the Yamuna River to record:
    • Quality of treated water
    • Quantity of treated water
    • Biological O2 demand (BOD)
    • Chemical O2 demand (COD)
    • Total suspended solid (TSS)
    • Fecal coliform
    • Dissolved phosphate
• These directions have been issued in pursuance of ensuring proper environmental standards and public health safety in the NCT of Delhi.
• The Delhi High Court has scheduled the next hearing of the matter for 22nd November 2024.

What is Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974?

About

• This act provides for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water, for the establishment of boards with the same purpose.
• It is expedient to provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water.
• Parliament has no power to make laws for the States with respect to any of the provided matters except as provided in articles 249 and 250 of the Constitution.
• As per clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution of India, 1950 resolutions have been passed by all the Houses of the Legislatures of the States of Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tripura and West Bengal to the effect that the matters aforesaid should be regulated in those States by Parliament by law.

Power & Functions of Board Under the Act

• It is provided under Chapter IV of the Act as:
  • Functions of Central Board:
    • Promote cleanliness of streams and wells
    • Advise Central Government on water pollution prevention and control
    • Coordinate activities of State Boards
    • Provide technical assistance to State Boards
    • Carry out research on water pollution
    • Set standards for streams and wells
  • Functions of State Boards:
    • Plan and secure execution of programs for pollution prevention/control
    • Advise State Government
    • Collect and disseminate information
    • Encourage/conduct research
    • Inspect sewage/trade effluents and treatment plants
    • Lay down effluent standards
    • Evolve treatment methods

Penalty Under the Act for Offences by the Government

• Section 48 of the Act states the Penalty as:
  • When an offence has been committed by any Department of Government, the Head of the Department shall be deemed to be guilty.
  • Except, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.