Legal Current Affairs

Question 1

[Pankaj Kumar Sharma v Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors]

Answer 1

1. The Delhi High Court on Thursday awarded ₹50,000 compensation to a man who was illegally detailed by the Delhi Police for half an hour .
2. Justice Subramonium Prasad
3. The time spent in the lock-up by the petitioner, even for a short while, cannot absolve the police officers who have deprived the petitioners of his liberty without following the due procedure established by law…
4. This Court is of the opinion that a meaningful message must be sent to the authorities that police officers cannot be law unto themselves

Question 2

[PUCL v State].

Answer 2

1. The Jharkhand High Court recently directed the State government to provide disabled-friendly infrastructure in all courts, quasi-judicial bodies and tribunals in the State
2. A bench of Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Rajesh Shankar

Question 3

[Tarun Narang vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors]

Answer 3

The Delhi High Court rejected a plea for a court-monitored investigation to scrutinize irregularities flagged in the Delhi government’s AYUSH Directorate by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).

A Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula

Question 4

[Sita Soren v. Union of India].

Answer 4

1. A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on whether the legal immunity enjoyed by legislators under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution protects them from prosecution for taking bribes
2. The bench Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, PV Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra
3. Article 105(2) confers on Members of Parliament (MPs) immunity from prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given by them in Parliament or on any parliamentary committee.
4. Article 194(2) grants similar protection to Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs).
5. Earlier in 1998, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had held in PV Narasimha Rao v. State that Article 105(2) even protects MPs from facing bribery charges. A 3:2 majority had reasoned that 105(2) applies not only to voting but anything connected to voting including taking bribes that influenced the voting.

Question 5

[Shri Ramleela Committee, Janakpuri & Anr v. Rishu Kant Sharma & Ors].

Answer 5

1. The Delhi High Court expressed concern over the worsening air quality in the national capital but in the same breath said that the significance of “socio-cultural activities” like Dussehra cannot be overlooked
2. “The residents of Delhi are gasping for breath which makes it a duty not only of the government agencies, but also requires concerted effort of every individual to make an endeavour to save the city and each be the active brigade of ‘Saviours Of Nature’,” the Court said.
3. The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Question 6

[Dabur India Limited v. Ashok Kumar And Ors]

Answer 6

The Delhi High Court recently issued notice to 24 banks after Delhi Police said that delay by the financial institutions in responding to its communication in respect of fraudulent websites was a major challenge in its probe.

Question 7

[Shri Ashan Kumar v Union of India & Others]

Answer 7

The Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere with a decision by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) to relieve Ashan Kumar from the position of Indian Kabaddi Team (Boys) chief coach for the National Coaching Camp being held to prepare for the Asiad Games, 2023.

Question 8

Article 265 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Answer 8

265. Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of law No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law

Question 9

Article 17 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Answer 9

17. Abolition of Untouchability Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden The enforcement of any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law

Question 10

Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code

Answer 10

363. Punishment for kidnapping.—Whoever kidnaps any person from 1[India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Question 11

342 IPC

Answer 11

. Punishment for wrongful confinement.—Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both

Question 12

S.3 POCSO

Answer 12

A person is said to commit “penetrative sexual assault” if–
(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person.

Question 13

Section 4. POCSO

Answer 13

Punishment for penetrative sexual assault.
1[(1)] Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than 2[ten years] but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
3[(2) Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.]

Question 14

Section 8. POCSO

Answer 14

Punishment for sexual assault.

Whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine

Question 15

Section 10. POCSO

Answer 15

Punishment for aggravated sexual assault.

Whoever, commits aggravated sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Question 16

Section 377 IPC

Answer 16

. Unnatural offences.

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.

Question 17

Minor competent to contract?

Answer 17

1. The Supreme Court reiterated that the contract entered by the minor is not enforceable under law.
2. The sale deed was executed between the appellant (minor) and the respondents (sellers). Under the said agreement, the minor had agreed to purchase some immovable property. The sellers were given an advance for the purchase of the property.
3. the Supreme Court held that the parties must be competent to contract, and the contract is not enforceable under the law if it is executed by a minor at the time of entering into a contract.
4. As per the Contract Act, 1872 it is clearly stated that for an agreement to become a contract, the parties must be competent to contract, wherein age of majority is a condition for competency.
5. A deed of mortgage is a contract and we cannot hold that a mortgage in the name of a minor is valid, simply because it is in the interest of the minor unless she is represented by her natural guardian or guardian appointed by the court.”, observed the Supreme Court in Mathai Mathai vs. Joseph Mary Alias Marykutty Joseph (2015) 5 SCC 622.

Question 18

WILLIAM STEPHEN VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 607 of 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Answer 18

1. the Supreme Court acquitted an accused charged under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code i.e., kidnapping for ransom, after finding that the prosecution failed to establish that there was an instant threat of death to the kidnapped from the accused.
2. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 364A of IPC were not proved by the prosecution inasmuch as the prosecution failed to lead cogent evidence to establish the second part of Section 364A about the threats given by the accused to cause death or hurt to such person
3. In a given case, if the threats given to the parents or the close relatives of the kidnapped person by the accused are established, then a case can be made out that there was a reasonable apprehension that the person kidnapped may be put to death or hurt may be caused to him. However, in this case, the demand and threat by the accused have not been established by the prosecution
4. Two ingredients need to be established by the prosecution to prove the commission of an offence under Section 364A IPC (Kidnapping for Ransom).
5. The first ingredient of Section 364A is that there should be a kidnapping or abduction of any person or a person should be kept in detention after such kidnapping or abduction.
6. The second ingredient is that if the said act is coupled with a threat to cause death or hurt to such person.
7. The Court noted that the conviction under Section 364A is not made out as the prosecution failed to establish the demand and threat by the accused to the parents or the close relatives of the kidnapped person

Question 19

Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No(s). 1722/2010
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 166

Answer 19

1. Setting aside a husband’s conviction for abetment of his wife’s suicide, the Supreme Court recently held that by raising presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act, a person cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC when cogent evidence of harassment or cruelty is absent.
2. To quote the observation,”mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply.”
3. Therefore, before a presumption under Section 113A is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard
4. such an offending action should be proximate to the time of occurrence
5. Recapitulating the legal position on abetment of suicide, the Court cited many judicial precedents including Kashibai& Others v. The State of Karnataka where it was held that to bring a case within the purview of ‘abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be evidence wrt “instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused”
6. and for proving a charge under Section 306, there has to be evidence wrt “a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide”.
7. Speaking on gathering of “intention”, the Court said, “A person intends a consequence when he (1) foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and (2) desires it to happen.
8. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused’s mind
9. It was emphasized in unequivocal terms that for conviction under Section 306 IPC, there has to be visible and conspicuous mens rea and mere harassment is not sufficient.
10. It was added that the presumption under S. 113A is discretionary in nature, unlike the one under Section 113B (presumption regarding dowry death) of the Evidence Act, which is mandatory.