IMPORTANT CURRENT LEGAL UPDATES FOR JUDICIARY EXAM WITH CASE LAWS

Abstract 

The year 2024 have so far witnessed some high-profile cases and new verdicts which are in complete contrast to their precedents. From 1^st July,2024 the 3 New Criminal Laws came into force and replaced the British-era laws putting the focus on Justice and not punishment or penalty. Apex court’s crucial judgment on NEET-UG Paper leak, right of maintenance to divorced Muslim women under section 125 CrPC and the landmark judgment to allow States to frame Sub-quota within the SC & ST communities for betterment and welfare of marginalised people in these classes and to ensure “substantive equality” for the “poorest within the poor’s” and to allow effective distribution and use of the reservation quota for the people who still Lag behind despite having the reservation for years. All these issues have core significance in the context of Indian Legal History.

Supreme Court Refuses to Cancel NEET-UG 2024, Says There’s No Material to Show Systemic and Large-scale Breach

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 23) in Vanshika Yadav & Others vs Union of India (2024), refused to cancel this year’s NEET-UG exam due to paper leaks and questions about large scale cheating and fraud. The court said there was no absolute evidence that the leak was widespread and would jeopardize the sanctity of the entire test. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India(CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, also comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, heard this important matter.

The Court also stated that ordering a re-examination will lead to serious consequences affecting over 23 lakh students and will lead to disruption in the medical admissions cycle.

The apex court also stated that it had considered the information submitted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the Union Govt. and decided not to cancel the exam as there was insufficient information and details in the file to take a decision.

The audit for the year 2024 is not based on the standards laid down in the judgment of this Court and is not based on the records. The CJI said: “The Court has noticed that the introduction of new NEETUG this year will have significant ramifications affecting over 24 lakh students appearing for this exam… with knock-on effects on all medical courses.

The Court has ordered not to cancel the exams in the midst of the seat allotment process and it didn’t order stopping the Counselling process. The Supreme Court heard all the pleas regarding cancellation of the exam on Monday, July 22. This decision is seen as significant because the counselling process for the entrance exam is scheduled to begin on Wednesday, July 24. According to the IIT Madras findings, the government report said that a   comprehensive review of the NEETUG 2024 data showed, “There is no   indication of any major fraud. In the analysis, there is a gap of nine days in the documents due to lack of approval, they are being sent to various   banks for analysis,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said, but after the analysis, honest review is required only if there is a major impact.

Linked Precedent – Past verdict doesn’t bother Hon’ble SC in a similar matter as this time apex court takes a different view:- In Tanvi Sarwal v Central Bureau of Investigation (2015), The Court had allowed a retest when it was discovered that 44 students had benefitted from a leak of the All India Pre Medical Test(AIPMT) paper. SG Tushar Mehta appearing for Govt. of India & The National Testing Agency (NTA) submitted that the Tanvi Sarwal decision would not apply to the current NEET leak case since it was a country-wide leak and the network of the organised gang was spread across different states. In the present case, the leak was only found in Patna and Hazaribagh.

*AIPMT was replaced by NEET from 2016 onwards.

Divorced Muslim women also entitled to maintenance as a secular remedy

The Supreme Court has recently ruled in Abdul Samad vs State of Telangana (2024) that divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance under “secular” Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973. Personal remedy for maintenance under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 does not exclude divorced Muslim women’s right to maintenance under Section 125 CPC, says Bench.

The separate but concurring judgment of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustin Goerge Masih came on an appeal filed by a Muslim challenging the Telangana High Court’s order which upheld, albeit modified, a family court’s order granting his wife, whom he had divorced through triple talaq, interim alimony according to Section 125 of the CrPC.

In his appeal, Md. Abdul Samad said that his wife had to resort exclusively to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and not to Section 125 CPC. He contended that the 1986 Act was a special Act and went beyond the provisions of the CPC. He contended that the claim of a divorced Muslim woman for maintenance under Section 125 is not maintainable. The Supreme Court, however, agreed with amicus curiae, senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal, that the remedy under the secular statutory provision of Section 125 CrPC 1973 cannot be barred to divorced Muslim women by virtue of the enactment of a personal remedy under the Act, 1986. A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to all maintenance rights enjoyed by other similarly situated women in the country.

Furthermore, the court pointed out that Section 3 of the 1986 Act requires a man to provide his divorced Muslim wife with “adequate and just maintenance” only during the iddat period. Once the iddat period expires, the personal legal obligation to support a divorced Muslim woman ceases. On the other hand, Section 125 directs the husband to provide monthly maintenance to his divorced wife irrespective of her religion.

“Every divorced wife who has not married again is entitled to maintenance from her ex-husband who possess sufficient means but has still neglected or clearly refused to maintain her,” Justice Nagarathna pointed out.

Maintenance for children – Further, the 1986 Act holds a Muslim guy liable to pay his divorced spouse protection for their children for best a period of two years from their birth dates.

Whereas Section 125 calls for a husband is obliged to pay for their youngsters until they reap the age of majority. Again, there is no higher cap fixed for payment of alimony under Section 125, Thus, making it a more beneficial provision in comparison to the 1986 regulation. “If Section 125 of the CrPC is excluded from its application to a divorced Muslim female, it would be in violation of Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India which states that the State shall no longer discriminate to any citizen simplest on the floor of faith, race, caste, sex, faith. The remedy of protection is a crucial source of succour for the destitute, the deserted and the disadvantaged sections of women,” Justice Nagarathna cited. Justice Masih, in his opinion, said Section 125 manifested the constitutional dedication towards special measures to make sure a life of dignity for women in any respect in their lives no matter their religion.

Harmonious Interpretation – He found that Section 125 and the 1986 Act were not inconsistent with each other. The 1986 Act did not take away the right of a divorced Muslim woman who is unable to support herself to claim maintenance under Section 125. It is left to the Muslim woman to claim maintenance either under Section 125 or under the 1986 Act. If a Muslim woman is unable to support herself, she could claim maintenance under Section 125. If, on the other hand, she is able to support herself financially, she could very well claim maintenance under the 1986 Act until the iddat period expires. Courts must give both laws a harmonious and expedient interpretation, Justice Masih noted.

If a divorced Muslim lady reaches out to the Magistrate for enforcement of her rights under Section 125 CrPC, she cannot be compelled to entertain her right only under the 1986 Act. In other words, a divorced Muslim lady is entitled to searching for best recourse to her either through one or both the provisions. The option lies solely with the woman,” stated the judgment, which disregarded Mr. Samad’s arguments and rejected his plea.

Linked Precedent – The Mohd. Ahmad Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum & Ors. (1985), case is looked upon as one of the milestones in the battle for protection of rights of Muslim women. While the Supreme Court upheld the right to alimony in this case, the judgment kickstarted a political war in addition to a problem about the volume to which courts can interfere in Muslim personal law and delve into Shariat-regulated issues of the Indian Muslims. The case laid the ground for Muslim women’s fight for equal rights in subjects of marriage and divorce in regular courts.

The Judgment created a furore and was unacceptable to the Muslims who termed it a ‘systematic encroachment in their private religious matters’. under huge pressure from the Muslim clergy, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Muslim institutions and organizations, along with fearing a backlash from the Congress’s core Vote bank and to appease them and keep their votes for Congress party intact in the future, the then Rajiv Gandhi led Congress government, elected in 1984, relented to the demands of the protestors and passed the Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce Act), 1986. This law overturned the verdict of the apex court in Shah Bano case and it stated that the alimony duration can only be made answerable for the iddat period only. The new law said that if a divorced female wasn’t able to provide and maintain for herself, the magistrate had the power to direct the Waqf Board for imparting the aggrieved lady the means of sustenance and for her dependent children too.

Apex Court rules State Governments have power to sub-classify SCs for quotas:–

In a majority judgment, Bench holds that sub-categorisation within a category is a constitutional requirement to achieve and effectively ensure substantial equality.

A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, in State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh (2020), through a majority judgment on August 1, held that States have a right to sub-classify Scheduled Castes notified within the Presidential List to offer them “extra preferential treatment in public employment and education”. Four of the seven judges on the Bench said the government must consider to extend the “creamy layer concept” to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, like within the case of Other Backward Classes (OBC) class. It deemed it hugely essential to exclude the affluent individuals or households from the blessings of reservation and make room for the certainly underprivileged inside these classes.

Crucially, since the E V Chinnaiah decision, the concept of a ‘creamy layer’ (which exists in Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservations) has made its way into SC reservations as well. In a 2018 landmark judgment in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, the Supreme Court upheld the “creamy layer” within the SCs. The idea sets an income ceiling for those eligible for reservations. It was used for promotions of the SCs for the very first time in 2018.

CJI Chandrachud along with justices B.R. Gavai, Manoj Misra, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal and S.C. Sharma were in favour of the judgment while Justice Bela Trivedi remained the lone dissenter on the bench and said states had no power to tinker with the presidential list of scheduled castes.

The bench allowed states to create sub-classifications in the SC and ST classes for the motive of according wider protections — via fixed sub-quotas — to the maximum backward groups inside these categories. Article 341 of the Constitution allows the President, through a public notification, to designate as SCs “castes, races or tribes” who have suffered the historical injustice of untouchability. SC groups are jointly granted 15% reservation in education and public employment. Over the years, some groups have been underrepresented on the SC list compared to others. States have tried to extend protections to these groups, but the issue has come up for judicial review.

The Constitution Bench judgment followed a reference to a seven-judge bench in 2020 to examine the constitutionality of the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars Reservation Act, 2009 and the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. It gave preferential quota to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs. Chief Justice Chandrachud traced the power of these states to subject Scheduled Castes for affirmative action, including reservations, to Article 15(4) [prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, caste, etc.] and Article 16(5) [equal opportunity in public employment] of the Constitution. The Chief Justice agreed that the “Scheduled Castes” did not form an “indivisible monolith”. The “Scheduled Castes” notified by the President under Article 341(1) of the Constitution had heterogeneous groups of castes, races or tribes with varying degrees of backwardness. Their inclusion in the presidential list by Parliament under Article 341(2) did not mean that they were a “unified and internally homogeneous unit” incapable of further classification. “Article 341(2) does not create an integrated homogeneous class. Historical and empirical evidence shows that the Scheduled Castes are a socially heterogeneous class. The State in exercise of power under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) can further classify Scheduled Castes if there is a rational principle for differentiation and if that rational principle is related to the purpose of sub-classification,” said Chief Justice Chandrachud.

The court agreed that concerns about “potential political coercion” by parties in power in states to expand vote banks cannot obviate the constitutional need to recognize and redress inequality between castes. The court observed that by dealing with caste distinctions based on quantifiable data and favouring a relatively oppressed group within a class, the states did not interfere with Parliament’s power under Article 341(2) to effect inclusion or exclusion from the list of the scheduled castes. They only work to promote “material equality”. In addition, states must produce empirical data to support their claim that the subclass warrants more beneficial treatment. Again, the State is not empowered to reserve 100% of the seats available for Scheduled Castes in favour of a group to the exclusion of other castes in the President’s List. Chief Justice Chandrachud referred to how the nine-judge bench in the Indra Sawhney case had declared it constitutional to classify the backward class into ‘backward’ and ‘more backward’ classes of citizens. The same principle would apply to scheduled castes. “The principle of sub-classification will be applicable to Scheduled Castes if the social status of the members between castes/groups is not comparable… Sub-categorization within a class is a constitutional requirement to ensure substantive equality,” said CJI, Chandrachud.

Linked Precedent – The majority judgment overturned the landmark verdict in E.V. Chinnaiah’s case, which held that this sub-classification amounted to manipulation of the President’s list by the State Legislature and was therefore inconsistent with Article 341(2), which vests this power exclusively in Parliament. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004 held that the SC/ST list was a “homogeneous group” that could not be further divided.

The 3 New Criminal Laws effectively laid down and became applicable from 1^st July,2024

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023, came into force from July 1, 2024, replacing the colonial-era Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860, Code of Criminal procedure (CrPC) 1973 and Indian Evidence Act 1872.

It was in December 2023 that these three new criminal bills, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) were passed by the Parliament. The three new penal laws received “Presidential Assent” on 25^th December 2023 and were notified in ‘The Official Gazette of India’ to take effect from 1^st July,2024″.

Together, these three new laws regulate criminal justice jurisprudence – from defining crimes, prescribing investigative procedures and evidence-gathering processes, to conducting trials.

Prime Highlights of the New Criminal Laws:- Goal – The new laws aim to replace colonial-era punishments with a justice-focused approach that integrates technological advances into police investigations and court procedures.

New Offences: New offenses include terrorism, mob lynching, organized crimes, it criminalizes sexual intercourse done with malicious intent, hiding original identity, through deceitful means, and with the pretext of a Fake promise to marry and thus it caters to the growing demands to regulate the contentious “Love-Jihad” issue.

Main Points – a) States may introduce their own amendments to certain provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

1. b) The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) may also soon be amended to include a section on sexual crimes against men and transgender persons.
2. c) The IPC and CrPC will run concurrently with the new laws as several cases are still pending in the courts and some offenses that occurred before July 1, 2024 and will be reported later will have to be registered under the IPC.
3. d) First Information Reports (FIRs) can now be filed online through Crime and Crime Tracking Systems (CCTNS), enabling e-FIRs and Zero FIRs in multiple languages ​​without visiting a police station.
4. e) All states have received training and hand-holding to help them adapt to the new system.
5. f) While the Home Ministry is testing eSakshya, a mobile app for the police to record and upload crime scene evidence, various states have developed their own systems based on their capabilities. For example, the Delhi Police has developed the e-pramaan application.

Key Points in New Laws – a) Introduces community service as punishment for minor offences.

1. b) An act of terrorism is defined as an act that threatens or may threaten the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security or economic security of India or acts which cause or may cause terror among people.

c)Mob lynching is now punishable by death or life imprisonment if committed by five or more on grounds such as race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief.

d)The trial of fugitive criminals will be held in absentia. e) Summary trials now include cases where the sentence is up to 3 years, aiming to resolve more than 40% of cases in the appeal courts.

1. f) Video recording is mandatory during search and seizure. No charge sheet is valid without such video record evidence.
2. g) The first offender who has served a third of his prison sentence will be released on bail by the court.
3. h) Forensic experts should be used in any case where the sentence involves seven or more years in prison.
4. i) Increased and stricter penalties for crimes against women and children.
5. j) Since rape laws are still not made gender-neutral, there is little criminal recourse for male victims of sexual assault and violence.

Linked Precedent – Since India gained independence from colonial rule, the existing three criminal laws have been revised again and again. This time, however, these criminal laws needed serious changes and not just casual amendments. Amit Shah, the Union Home & Co-operation Minister, expressed that the new ‘Sanhitas’ demonstrated laws made by Indians for Indians. Interestingly, according to some legal experts, although the new laws will bring crucial changes, they will not actually “overhaul” the existing ones. There were growing calls and appeals to change the criminal laws and finally the Union Government took note and framed and implemented 3 new criminal laws in India which focus on delivering justice rather than handing down punishment.

Conclusion

The Supreme court keeps track of its past judgments and modifies them in accordance with current times, (if the need arises to do so). Our Legal system is complex and flexible and not rigid which allows it to adapt with the changing times and needs of the society. The above-mentioned legal cases and their precedents are live testimonies to prove my point. The 3 New Criminal laws implemented to replace the Colonial era laws open a new chapter in our judicial system’s rich history and legacy as the novice laws are designed keeping in mind the purpose of delivering and upholding justice and not penalizing or sentencing the accused. One has to remain vigilant and updated to track these changes and stay connected with the Legal Happenings. Our Judicial System in general and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in particular are the watchdog of the Laws and saviours of the general public from the rigours of law and the political establishment.

SOURCES –

1. The Indian Express
2. Bar & Bench
3. Drishti IAS