In a landmark judgement, the Delhi High Court has held that video recording of bail hearings under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 cannot be done away with even in cases involving sexual offences.Justice Vikas Mahajan pronounced the decision and said Section 15A(10) does not make any exception as to the nature of offences, including the sexual offence; hence, video recording in each case filed under the Act was compulsory.Background of the Case The question, therefore, arose in a bail application under the SC/ST Act with accusations of sexual assault. The plea basically contended that since the case was a sexual offence, it must be kept out of the video recording to avoid invasion of privacy for the victim and the accused, and discretionary handling without the requirement of video documentation of the proceedings is the need of the hour for such sexual offences. However, the prosecution, which appeared for the complainant, contended that the law is explicit and provides no exceptions. The prosecution mentioned that Section 15A (10) of the SC/ST Act has made it obligatory that all proceedings, including bail proceedings, shall be video-recorded to bring about accountability and transparency in cases related to the marginalized community. Court's Ruling While pronouncing the judgment, Justice Vikas Mahajan held that video recording is indispensable in every bail proceeding which also includes those relating to sexual offenses under the SC/ST Act. It was pointed out that the statutory words and phraseology employed in Section 15A(10) are unmistakable and do not carve out an exception for any case. This provision was brought in to safeguard the interests of victims and witnesses in cases relating to atrocities against members of SC/ST communities so that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly and openly. In this regard, the court has laid great emphasis on the intent of the provision: creating faith in the judicial process, especially for victims from weaker sections who always experience obstacles in approaching justice. Videography of bail proceedings is, therefore, a tool for ensuring transparency and accountability so that the due process of law is not abused in any manner. Further, Justice Mahajan added that the apprehension of invasion of privacy and sensitivity of a sexual offence recorded material, would be taken care of by maintaining the confidentiality of the recorded material. Suitable guidelines shall have to be laid down so that video recordings are not misused or released to public view without permission and confidentiality is maintained regarding the privacy of individuals. Significance of the Ruling The Delhi High Court order interprets an intent under Section 15A(10) of the SC/ST Act without exception, even in cases of sexual offences too, video recording is mandatorily required.
In a critical judgment, Allahabad High Court expressed concern that arbitrary bail conditions disproportionately affect the underprivileged, who end up staying in jail for far longer periods. It underlined that trial courts must avoid ordering excessive bail conditions and take into consideration the economic condition of the accused so that poor people are not denied justice simply because they cannot afford hefty surety amounts or meet other onerous bail conditions.Background of the Case The issue came to the forefront when, in a case, an accused, though granted bail, continued to stay in jail as he could not satisfy the economic surety to come out of the jail. The accused, from a marginalized background, did not have the financial wherewithal to meet the conditions of bail laid down by the trial court, and hence, his release remained stuck, which was when litigation intervention became essential. The counsel for the appellants thus contends that the trial court has not taken into consideration the socio-economic condition of the accused persons while imposing conditions for bail. Such being the practice and process, poor people get discriminated in not being able to come out from jail despite having got bail, which situation cannot be held consistent with the principles of justice. Observations Justice Ajay Bhanot of the Allahabad High Court came down heavily on the imposition of arbitrary and disproportionate conditions for bail, which hit the poor harder than the rich. The Court ruled that while granting bail, trial courts have a duty to apply their minds and assess the financial capability of the accused before fixing sureties or imposing any other term for the grant of bail. Failure to do so amounts to the deprivation of the basic right to life and liberty entrenched in the Constitution. Justice Bhanot observed that bail being a right, the conditions should not be so oppressive and so hard as to deny its real meaning to those applicants who are not able to comply with them. The Court held that the trial courts should adopt a balancing approach in preserving the presence of the applicant before the court so that the accused does not run away, but in the process, conditions should not be such as it might hamper or practically deny the releasing of an applicant due to his or her poverty. Significance of the Judgment This judgment of the Allahabad High Court is a great pointer toward the principle of equitable justice. In this context, the intervention by the Court acts as a check and balance on the possible misuse of the conditions of bail, whereby the right to personal liberty could get restricted simply for the reason that an accused is unable to comply with them due to financial constraints. It has also brought into force that trial courts must be more humane and sensitive, particularly when dealing with people from economically weaker sections. The judgment is expected to shape more such cases in the future, and would ostensibly compel trial courts to be more considerate of the economic and social background of the accused while laying down bail condition orders. The order bears special importance for a country like India where the majority of its population comprises the underprivileged sections, and where uncalled-for bail conditions turn out to be long detention of those who cannot afford it.
A PIL before the Kerala High Court has raised serious legal and constitutional questions on the validity of Section 69 of the Bharat National Statute by making sex under a false promise of marriage a criminal offense. An activist, in the petition, has contended that the provision ossifies women as mere passive victims, has not been able to catch up with the complexity of modern relationships, and entirely ignores the rights of LGBTQIA+ people.The Problem of Section 69 BNS Section 69 criminalises sexual intercourse occurring on the basis of a false promise of marriage as deception, therefore, rape under its purview. The said section assumes that any consent to sexual relations on the pretext of a future marriage is vitiated by the misrepresentation. The petitioner contests this formulation on the ground that it infantilises women since it treats them as incapable of consent in a consensual relationship. The PIL has also questioned the gendered nature of the law since it protects only women by excluding men, transgender persons, and individuals from the LGBTQIA+ community, too, who may be misled by false promises. The PIL argues that such a one-sided approach reinforces patriarchal notions and denies agency to individuals from other gender identities. Petitioner, therefore, submits that this Section contravenes Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India which deal with the right to equality, non-discrimination and personal liberty, respectively. Consent and Autonomy - It is one of the central contentions in the PIL that the law must keep pace with the changing mores about relationships - the growing tolerance of premarital sex, for instance. The petitioner contends that choice of adults in a consensual sexual relationship has to be permitted without the Damocles' sword of criminal prosecution looming over them for any misunderstanding or miscommunication about marriage. The PIL contends that not every false promise of marriage should invite criminal liability in cases where such promises flow either from emotional or situational compulsions. Pressing this further, the petitioner states that adults must necessarily be presumed capable of making informed choices about their personal lives and that criminalization here cuts at the very root of individual autonomy. Impact on the LGBTQIA+ Community PIL further points out that Section 69 BNS does not include the LGBTQIA+ community within its ambit. Inasmuch as the section is silent about the same, it does not accord dignity to people of the LGBTQIA+ community when they are equally subjected to the same deceptions. Thus, the PIL argues that this exclusionary nature of law further marginalizes an already vulnerable section of society. Conclusion The PIL before the Kerala High Court gives an incisive critique of the archaic and gender-biased provisions contained in Section 69 BNS. The case, therefore, questions the patriarchal assumptions lying at the heart of the law while seeking an expansion to become more inclusive and respectful of individual autonomy in personal relationships.
The demarcation, which the Supreme Court has once again made, pertains to the important legal principle wherein custody in one case does not deny the right to seek anticipatory bail in another case. This judgment also explains the important aspect of criminal jurisprudence and how personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is not curtailed at the hands of the law, even when all grounds for bail are fair and existent. The case had come up before the Supreme Court after a lower court had rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a person who was already in judicial custody in some other case. The accused, therefore, approached the Supreme Court with a grievance that once a person was already in custody in one case, he was being denied the right to seek anticipatory bail in another independent case. The petitioner contended that the statutory right of anticipatory bail was meant to protect an individual against unlawful or unjust arrest, and that this interpretation by the lower court was unduly restrictive and unsupported. Order of the Supreme Court Such a distinction between custody and anticipatory bail was made by the Supreme Court of India while pronouncing the judgment. The Court stated that while the provision of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC is principally to avoid arrest. It outlined the centrality of anticipatory bail, which is basically against highhanded and unreasonable arrest. The judgment held that the purpose of granting anticipatory bail is to defend the liberty of a person and save him from unnecessary and wrongful arrest. Anticipatory bail, it further reiterated, shall not be refused on technical grounds nor on a mechanical interpretation of the law. It explained that an accused who is already in custody in one case can also be granted anticipatory bail on merits in another case. The integrating test for grant of anticipatory bail should be based upon the merits of the case before it rather than upon the custody status of the accused in some other case. The judgment of the Court strengthens the doctrine of personal liberty while defining the right to anticipatory bail in India. It gives much-needed guidance on the principle with which the courts should interpret the right to anticipatory bail when the accused is already in custody in some other matter.
In a landmark judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that female employees in the private sector, too, are entitled to maternity leave of 180 days on a par with their government sector counterparts. This decision is a giant stride toward gender equality and protection of the rights of women in the workplace, a guarantee that women in both private and public sectors can avail themselves of comprehensive maternity benefits. A woman working in the private sector had approached the Rajasthan High Court because her employer refused to grant her 180 days of maternity leave. The petitioner argued that under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, applicable to all establishments, the mandatory period for maternity leave is at least 26 weeks (approximately 180 days). However, the employer had granted her only a shorter leave period on the ground that such extended benefits were available only to government employees. On grounds of discrimination and denial of equality before the law, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. She further contended that maternity leave is a right and not a privilege and should be extended to every woman whatever sector she belongs to. While passing the order, the Rajasthan High Court supported the petitioner and ordered that even private sector-employed women are entitled to maternity leave of 180 days. The Court said the Maternity Benefit Act would apply uniformly to all women employees working in any establishment falling under the law, without distinction between those working in the private and public sectors. The Court also explained that maternity benefits are linked to both the survival of a female and her child and are thus an element of non-discrimination on the basis of one's sex. The bench, therefore, made it amply clear that the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, extended the period of maternity leave from 12 weeks to 26 weeks to give women adequate time for the care and nurturing of the newborns and the recovery after childbirth. It clarified that private employers cannot circumvent or dilute the said provisions. The High Court judgment assumes significance for women employees in the private sector as it has once again drawn on record that it would be their right to have maternity benefits on a par with women employees in the public sector. By extending the 180-day maternity leave to private sector employees, the court has ensured greater protection for working women to perform both their professional and personal responsibilities without compromising either on health or the well-being of their children. This judgment is also a word of caution for the private employers that they can no longer whimsically deny the legally vested rights of their women employees. The judgment has opened ways for the women working in the private sector for availing the same kind of maternity benefits as are being enjoyed by their sisters and colleagues working in the government jobs, thereby aiming to bring equity and fairness in the workplace. The Rajasthan High Court order is an effort to establish workplace equality and securing the rights of women in the private sector. By upholding the right to 180 days of maternity leave, the court gave a sigh of relief to working women, ensuring health and well-being during the most critical time in life. This judgment further strengthens the existing supportive legal framework relating to maternity benefits and will become a precedent for other cases across India.
In one striking judgement, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a live-in couple would be entitled to protection even if one of the partners is already married. The judgement recognises the rights of people in live-in relationships and acts as a guideline for protection against life and personal liberty as per Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, especially when matters concerning personal relationship are complex.The matter had cropped up for the first time before the High Court on the petition of a couple living together, praying for police protection apprehending life threats from the family members of one of the partners. Societal pressure and threats to the couple arose owing to the fact that one of them was married and had children through the wedlock with another person. It was contended by the couple that though there was an existing marriage, they had a right to live together and have protection provided by the State in terms of the Constitution. The police were unwilling to grant them protection in view of the partner's existing marital relationship. They, therefore, approached the High Court for protection against any harm that could be caused to them for living together. Punjab and Haryana High Court, while passing the order, states that the relationship of petitioners may not be able to meet all conventional or legal definitions of marriage. However, the Court has made it amply clear that life and personal liberty, as entrenched under Article 21 of the Constitution, is a basic feature and, as such, cannot be jeopardized whatsoever, whatever the type of relationship. It held that even in cases when one of them is already married, it would not affect the grant of protection to the couple. The Court observed that the principal issue involved in such cases always relates to saving the lives and liberties of the people in peril. It is of little consequence whether the person is already married or not. Right to life encompasses the right to live with dignity in a relationship of one's choice, and this cannot be taken away based on societal judgments and moral policing. If a life of a person living in live-in relationship is under threat, then protection must be given, even if one of the partners is already married observed the bench. This order is important in widening the circle of individual freedoms in India by upholding the rights of live-in couples when the institution of marriage is not consummated according to convention. It underlines personal liberty as an inviolable tenet that cannot be taken away because one party has expressed social disapproval or legal relationships. It also underlines how the judiciary is increasingly opening to relationships outside the traditional institution of marriage and thus towards an expanding notion of personal rights. While the judgment does not condone adultery or bigamy, it ensures persons with complicated relationships are not denied basic rights
The Supreme Court of India has time and again shown its concern regarding certain legal provisions enacted to protect women against domestic violence and cruelty. Especially, Section 498A of the IPC, which deals with the cruelty of the husband or his relatives, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), have been in the limelight for wide debate. In fact, both laws have been specifically laid down to protect women against harassment and abuse at home, but the reported misuse of such provisions has generated much legal debate.However, some apprehensions have been raised as to the misuse of Section 498A. There have been complaints that this section has been employed as a weapon even against the husbands and their relatives for harassment or for the purpose of a false implication. Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. In the case, (2017) the Supreme Court commented on the trend of growing cases of false implications under Section 498A and labeled it as one of the most abused provisions. Such complaints were filed out of a vindictive motive leading to the harassment of innocent persons as a consequence of wrongful prosecution. While this has been the case with the criminal justice system approach, the civil law-namely, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005-designed to afford relief to women at the receiving end of abuse-proves to be no exception. This act empowers a female to seek a protection order, residence order and monetary compensation arising due to domestic violence. While the letter and spirit of the law are aimed at protecting victims of domestic violence, the Supreme Court has also conceded that the law has been misused in a number of cases to settle personal scores or gain undue advantage in matrimonial disputes. Finally, while Section 498A and the Domestic Violence Act were enacted to save women from genuine abuse, the Supreme Court has taken note of the increasing misuse of such provisions. The Court's observations only mirror the judicious use of these laws so that justice is guaranteed both to the victims of abuse and to the falsely accused.
In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court held that it cannot prosecute a husband's friend under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for cruelty to a woman by her husband or his relatives. The operational word in the said judgment has brought out the limited ambit of the section providing that it shall apply only to husband and his immediate family members.Background of the Case It is an application by the complainant-wife against the husband, parents-in-law and one friend of her husband under Section 498A IPC for cruelty and harassment. It is stated by her that this friend was playing an active role in instigating the husband and his family to commit the acts of cruelty. The complaint had accused the husband and his family of harassment for dowry and physical and mental abuse but had also dragged the husband's friend into the allegations, claiming that he contributed to the harassment. Court's Observations The Allahabad High Court, after going through the case, discharged the accused husband's friend from the charges. The court said Section 498A IPC specifically deals with cruelty by the husband or his relatives. The word "relative", as understood from the wordings of the law, would mean a person related by blood or marriage. It will not include mere friends or acquaintances, or others who would not come within the definition of the word "relative" in respect of the husband or wife. The court further explained that there is every possibility that if the ambit of Section 498A is extended to include friends or third parties, there will be considerable misuse of the said provision and unwarranted prosecution. Legal Reasoning The court explained that since the friend did not fall within the legal definition of a "relative," he could not be prosecuted under this section. This judgment explained that Section 498A was enacted for curbing the cruelty or dowry-related harassment by close family members and is not meant to include far-off relations or social acquaintances. It also emphasized that false or exaggerated complaints under this section would defeat the very object of this law and result in unjust harassment of innocent people. Conclusion The recent judgment by the Allahabad High Court reiterates that the ambit of Section 498A is limited, as it has clarified that the reach of Section 498A lies only with the husband and the husband's relatives, and not with third parties such as friends or acquaintances. This judgment thus becomes fundamentally important to prevent the abuse of Section 498A and to ensure that only those persons who are directly responsible for cruelty are brought before the courts of law. While the ruling does not rule out charges under other sections, it at least saves unnecessary harassment to people like the friend of the husband under this very section.
In a path-breaking order, the Supreme Court of India expressed its concern against the increasing trend of demolition of properties when a member of the family is found to be allegedly involved in some crime. It categorically said that the illegality or criminal action by a single person could not be a valid cause for taking action against the legally constructed properties of the remaining family members.This comes in the backdrop of incidents in parts of the country where authorities have bulldozed houses, claiming it as a punishment to the families or individuals for some suspected criminal activity. The court expressed its deep and abiding concern as to how the bulldozing order has flouted the rule of law, cautioning that such methods not only offend constitutional values . Abuse of Authority The bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, observed that demolition of a legally constructed building without due judicial or administrative scrutiny is nothing but a punitive exercise against its occupants and, therefore, an act of vengeance and abuse of power. The judges said the law must be enforced to achieve equity, and punitive action, if any, should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense and not extended to innocent family members of the accused. The bench also highlighted that such demolitions seldom observe principles of due process and thus are arbitrary, violating the fundamental rights of citizens. It is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees to its citizens the right to life and liberty, including shelter. Illegal Acts of One Cannot Punish All The real salient feature of this judgment was the line that was distinctly drawn by the court between an individual's alleged involvement with an offense and the punishment the entire family had to face. While sentencing, the court said that demolishing property on account of family members is unconstitutional and not in order. Unless specific evidence can be brought out to link the entire family to the crime, it cannot be held responsible or punished for the illegal act committed by one of its members. A Warning to States The present judgment is a warning of severe portents to all state governments who have been using bulldozers as an instrument of swift punitive action with absolute disregard for due legal process. The court implored that such actions must be regulated and checked so as to ensure that the innocents should not suffer the damage of state overreach. The Supreme Court has, therefore, sought to re-establish the rule of law by holding that alleged crime involvement would not be a ground for demolition of properties. This judgment persists in the view of amply giving a guarantee that every citizen should have rights and misuse of state power must be adequately curtailed.
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court quashed the case against the police officer for controversial remarks against the Walayar rape victims. The court found that though insensitive, comments by the police officer did not warrant criminal charges. The court also directed that the action of the media outlet, 24 News, which recorded the officer's statements without his consent and later aired them, is questionable and may be investigated.The case was of the deaths of two minor Dalit girls in Walayar Kerala hanging under suspicious conditions in 2017. A case that was branded as a suicide became a widespread outrage with allegations that both girls were sexually assaulted before their death. There was tremendous criticism of the police for botching the investigation and failing to secure any conviction. Public outcry continued to force reopening of the case. At the peak of all this emotional fervor, a police officer investigating the case was caught on a sting operation by a reporter from 24 News while making disparaging remarks about the victims. These insensitive comments by the officer-a sign of negligence and prejudice in investigation-added more fuel to the fire of public anger. Court's Decision While setting aside the case against the police officer, the Kerala High Court held that though his remarks were inappropriate, they did not reach the threshold for criminal prosecution. The court recognised that the statements were made in a personal conversation and were recorded without his knowledge or consent. It further clarified that insensitive or distasteful comments, per se, cannot form the foundation of a criminal charge unless they fall within specific legal provisions. Investigation into the Conduct of Media While the court acquitted the police officer of all criminal liabilities, it expresses apprehension in the manner 24 News channel, which secretly recorded and then telecasted the conversation. The court proposed that police may consider starting an investigation as to whether the channel has committed any illegality by recording the officer without his knowledge and then broadcasting the footage. The court insisted on responsible journalism, especially in sensitive issues like the Walayar case. It has said that while media had played an important role in bringing before the public various wrongs committed against society, it had to conduct itself within the realm of responsibilities and respect the privacy of individuals. Conclusion This Kerala High Court judgment thus draws a fine balance between upholding free speech and protecting individuals from the use of unlawful media practices. It simply reiterates that while public functionaries must be held accountable for their actions, media houses too have to adhere to legal and ethical standards in their reporting.
Recently, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a plea that the city of Agra be declared a World Heritage site. Agra is the city with the famous Taj Mahal and many other historical monuments. PIL was filed by Advocate and Environmentalist M.C. Mehta. The plea said that with a heritage which is very rich, both in history and culture, along with globally recognized monuments, Agra needs to be accorded the status of a 'World Heritage' site by UNESCO.Background of the Plea The petition, filed many years ago, had sought intervention by the judiciary to save Agra's ecological and cultural heritage. M.C. Mehta, through his plea, had apprised the court that uncontrolled construction and pollution were devouring the architectural and historical charm of the Taj Mahal and monuments in Agra. Declaring Agra as a World Heritage site would definitely bring in more stringent environmental regulations and better conservation, he had contended. Mehta's plea also highlighted that while Taj Mahal was already a UNESCO World Heritage site, the city itself, with all the historical structures including its own cultural importance, needed to be declared as such. The petitioner, therefore, contended that such a declaration would ensure better tourism not only for Agra but globally, and conservation of its heritage. Supreme Court Judgment The plea was dismissed by a Supreme Court bench, presided over by the Chief Justice of India, on the ground that declaring a site as a World Heritage site falls within the authority of UNESCO and the Indian government. It pointed out that it had no authority to make such declaration but, more importantly, the nature of such declaration entailed international procedures and considerations outside the mandate of the judiciary. The bench added that most steps had been taken to preserve the Taj Mahal and surroundings. For instance, the making of Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ), the 10,400 sq km area around the monument is regulated to contain pollution and industrial activities that can damage the Taj. The court said the existing regulatory mechanisms, if properly implemented, would be adequate to protect the monument and the heritage at Agra. While discarding the petition, the court did acknowledge environmental issues that beset Agra, such as pollution caused by industries, vehicular traffic, and unplanned construction. However, it said that further regulation and monitoring of these issues are now beyond the courts of law, into the domain of the central and state government. It urged that the government should take all possible measures to ensure eco-friendly sustainability of the city as well as preserve the culture of the city. Dismissing the plea, the Supreme Court had indicated that international designations, like UNESCO World Heritage sites, were beyond the powers of the judiciary to get involved in. Though it may have looked like a loss for conservation, it was yet another reminder from the court that the environment did need regulations, and asked the government to keep up the protection of Agra's heritage so replete with culture.
The Supreme Court has now reported a recent significant legal development in which Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by the Central Bureau of Investigation was mainly intended to thwart his probable bail in the connected case that had been investigated by the Enforcement Directorate. The observation came when the court was hearing a petition filed by Kejriwal questioning the validity of his arrest as part of an ongoing investigation in which allegations of corruption and money laundering had surfaced.Arvind Kejriwal has faced relentless raids and scrutiny by CBI and ED owing to charges of financial misappropriation pertaining to different government schemes and contracts in Delhi. The CBI arrested him for corruption while ED launched a parallel probe for alleged money laundering under the PMLA. After his arrest, Kejriwal's counsel moved a bail plea arguing that he was being politically harassed to avoid relief to him in the ED case. Observation of SC Hearing the matter he had some strong observations to make regarding the nature of the arrest. He had commented that the timing and circumstances in which Kejriwal was detained seemed a tactical maneuver by the CBI to thwart Kejriwal's bail in the ED case. The court told him that not only did it amount to impropriety, but it was also against the very concept of justice to arrest an individual in one case just to thwart his bail in another still-ongoing investigation. Further, Justice Bhuyan explained that such arrests may amount to an abuse of the process of law. Emphasizing that courts cannot be oblivious to such steps taken by an investigating agency to frustrate the acquittal of bail by an accused in related cases, Justice Bhuyan explained that the courts have to be vigilant. In Kejriwal's case, the court said the action of the CBI seemed an attempt to thwart rather than a genuine step in aid of law enforcement. Observations by the Supreme Court carry great conviction because they postulate that criminal investigations are always conducted in a fair manner with the requirements of due process. It is the indication of the court that there are police who arrest people and must operate within the four corners of the law, so as not to exert undue pressure on the judicial system handling allied cases. This view appears relevant in situations when important political personalities become involved.
The Kerala High Court gave the death sentence of a man convicted for the murder of his lover's 4-year-old child which reduced it to life imprisonment in a ruling. The case has involved the brutal killing of a minor by a man accused of murder and has plunged into debates on how capital punishment can be applied in IndiaBackground of the Case: The man, who was then in a relationship with the victim's mother, is convicted of killing the 4-year-old boy. According to prosecution, the man had murdered the child out of frustration over his girlfriend's attachment to her child, whom he perceived as an obstacle in their future together. The crime was brutal: He strangled the child and dumped him into a well. The trial court had awarded the death penalty, calling the crime one of the 'rarest of the rare' under Indian law that sanctions the award of the capital punishment. High Court Issues its Order On appeal, the Kerala High Court deemed the crime circumstances, the mental state of the convicted, and the jurisprudential and general principles governing capital punishment. While it upheld the verdict, as it accepted the brutal nature of the offense as well, it deliberated on proportionality. The court opined that the 'rarest of the rare' doctrine requires that death sentences be meted out only in those cases where there is no possibility of reform for the convict and the crime so vile that life imprisonment would not serve the purpose. In this case, the court discovered many extenuating circumstances, that is, the convict's young age and potential for rehabilitation; thus, the sentence itself became questionable. Judgment: Having concluded a detailed assessment, coming to the relevant conclusion, the Kerala High Court observed the subsequent conclusion that life imprisonment would be more suitable as the punishment. The court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, and the result was that the convict would remain imprisoned for the rest of his natural life, without any chance of parole. This, in his view, would balance the deliverance of justice for the crime with the principles of humanity envisaged in the Indian Constitution. Implications: This judgement speaks to the debate in India regarding the death penalty and its meted out in the crimes against the minors. Many are vocal for providing stringent punishments, while the judiciary is still scathing with double-edged swords: it will weigh reform and balance with the act of punishment in proportion..
The Delhi Excise Policy case has now become one of the most important legal battles, buttressed with corruption, financial misconduct, and political intrigue. In a sharp turn of events in this case, the Supreme Court of India respite came to the accused high-profile politicians and business personalities upon questioning the evidenceCase Background The Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-2022 was introduced with the aim of making liquor sales in the national capital more transparent and yielding more income. But allegations of irregularities levelled at Delhi government officials and private players led to its scrutiny shortly after its implementation. Very spectacular arrests involved influential members of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), bureaucrats, and business persons. Initial rigidness of the trial courts was seen in the refusal of bail to the accused and further custodial interrogation. It all changed when the case entered the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Perception: The Delhi Excise Policy case before the Supreme Court was a turning point in this case. It raised sharp and stiff questions over the investigation approach adopted by both ED and CBI. Defense argued that the agencies were overstepping their authority, using it as political witch hunts and acting on unsubstantiated claims without enough proof of criminal wrongdoing. Avoiding an express declaration to hold the accused guilty or not guilty, a three-member Supreme Court bench restated that no man should be deprived of liberty without adequate proof. It commented that in cases where allegations involve crimes committed against public officials or functionaries, the possibility required to establish such evidence is much more stringent, and it expressed its apprehensions about long periods of detention without establishing any conclusive proof of money laundering or the other serious offenses. Relief for the Accused: Through an intensive scrutiny, the Supreme Court granted interim relief to the accused, allowing it to apply for bail on more mitigating terms. The Supreme Court also ordered the investigating agencies to put on record more inclusive evidence before sanctioning the arrest and prosecution of the accused. This decision marked a major juncture in the case, giving people involved in the controversy some respite, but at the same time warned investigative agencies about their necessity to abide by the law stringently. Conclusion The Delhi Excise Policy case continues to shift and evolve; but with the Supreme Court coming into play, this is a much-needed check in the mechanics, reinforcing the rule of law above politically charged accusations. This is a case that underlines the important role which the judiciary plays in protecting the rights and procedural fairness even when it is dealing with high-stakes public figures with sensitive political allegations..
The Bar Council of India (BCI) is thinking of on a suggestion to permit very last-yr law students to appear for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), the qualifying exam for training law in India. This turn out to be found at some point of a Supreme Court hearing, marking a terrific improvement in criminal training and exercise. The BCI’s consideration ought to doubtlessly modify the trajectory of regulation graduates’ careers thru permitting them to enter the career in advance.Background: The AIBE is a necessary certification exam accomplished with the aid of way of the Bar Council of India (BCI) for law graduates in advance than they're able to exercising regulation in courts for the duration of India. Traditionally, best the ones who've completed their LLB diploma and enrolled with a State Bar Council are eligible to sit for the AIBE. This practice guarantees that scholars have received the important crook statistics and abilties at some stage in their educational journey and are completely organized to go into the prison profession. In 2015, however, a petition filed before the Supreme Court challenged this rule, on the lookout for permission for very last-year regulation college students to seem for the examination, arguing that it might allow regulation university students to transition into their careers greater seamlessly with the aid of manner of lowering the geared up duration after commencement. Supreme Court Hearing: In the Supreme Court listening to, advocate for the petitioner argues that law university students, in particular the ones completing their three hundred and sixty five days, have already completed a terrific portion of their criminal education and ought to be entitled for taking the AIBE. While focusing on the reality that this step would allow the scholars to pursue their careers with out an awful lot of a waiting period before passing the diploma after which clearing the AIBE.